Implementation of Troubled Families Programme in Waltham ...€¦ · Waltham Forest would look to...

Version No: 1.5

Issue Date: 16th August 2012

Implementation of Troubled Families Programme in Waltham

Forest

Programme Brief

Version: 0.1

of 25 Date: 10/04/2012 Author: Anthony Lewis

VERSION HISTORY

Version Date Issued Brief Summary of Change Author

1.1 10/04/2012 First Draft Version Anthony Lewis

1.3 11/05/2012 Draft amended with Programme Board feedback

Anthony Lewis

1.4 20/07/2012 Amended to update work streams, stakeholders, funding proposal and milestone timeline.

Anthony Lewis

1.5 16/08/2012 Amended to include partial assessment of Year 1 co-hort

Anthony Lewis

DOCUMENT LOCATION

Document Location File Name

O:\CEXEC\COMSAFE\NEW O DRIVE STRUCTURE\Community Safety Team\Troubled Families\Programme

TF programme-brief---v1.5.doc

Version: 0.1


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 4

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT ................................................................................... 4 1.2 PROGRESS SO FAR................................................................................................... 4

2 VISION ......................................................................................................................... 6

3 STRATEGIC FIT .......................................................................................................... 7

3.2 BASED ON THE EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT UNDERTAKEN, THIS PROGRAMME HAS TO

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ISSUES (TO BE COMPLETED BASED ON EIA OF FINAL COHORT). ...... 8

4 PROGRAMME OUTCOMES ........................................................................................ 8

4.1 PROGRAMME OUTCOMES .......................................................................................... 8

5 SCOPE ......................................................................................................................... 8

5.1 IN SCOPE ................................................................................................................. 8 5.2 OUT OF SCOPE ......................................................................................................... 9

6 BENEFITS STRATEGY................................................................................................ 9

7 ASSUMPTIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND EXTERNAL FACTORS ................................11

7.1 ASSUMPTIONS .........................................................................................................11 7.2 CONSTRAINTS..........................................................................................................11 7.3 DEPENDENCIES .......................................................................................................11 7.4 EXTERNAL FACTORS ................................................................................................12

8 APPROACH ................................................................................................................12

9 PROJECT PORTFOLIO ..............................................................................................14

10 RISKS .........................................................................................................................16

11 TIMESCALES AND KEY MILESTONE DATES ..........................................................18

11.1 TIMESCALES ............................................................................................................18 11.2 KEY MILESTONE DATES ............................................................................................19

12 RESOURCES ..............................................................................................................19

12.1 FUNDING .................................................................................................................19 12.2 STAFF .....................................................................................................................21 12.3 OTHER ....................................................................................................................22

13 STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT ...............................................................................22

13.1 COMMUNICATIONS PLAN...........................................................................................23

14 PROGRAMME GOVERNANCE ..................................................................................23

14.1 PROGRAMME BOARD................................................................................................23 14.2 PROGRAMME STRUCTURE ........................................................................................24 14.3 PROGRAMME REPORTING .........................................................................................24

APPENDIX A - PROGRAMME STRUCTURE .....................................................................25

Version: 0.1


1 BACKGROUND

1.1 Purpose of this document

The purpose of this document is to define the programme objectives and outcomes. It describes the capability that the organisation (and partners) seeks from the changes to the business and operations.

1.2 Progress So Far

The Troubled Families initiative was formally launched on the 15th December 2011 to improve the outcomes for an estimated 120,000 families identified as having the greatest need. A Troubled Families unit within the Communities and Local Government, led by Louise Casey, is now coordinating this work.

The Department of Communities Troubled Families’ framework has defined troubled families as;

“9households who;

• Are involved in crime and anti-social behaviour

• Have children not in school

• Have an adult on benefits

• Cause high costs to the public purse.”

This document also sets out the cohort selection process, funding arrangements and performance measurement requirements of the initiative.

This programme is not a statutory requirement for local authorities to undertake, but has been publicly supported by the Prime Minister and other key members of the government as a key initiative for the Coalition government. As such the government has committed £448 million nationally to support local authorities deliver the programme over the next 3 years.

The estimates currently provided by the government suggest that Waltham Forest has approximately 760 families identified with multiple problems, out of an estimated range of 730 – 790 families. These estimates have been constructed by apportioning a national estimate of families with multiple problems, taken from the Family and Children’s Study, with Local Authority level data on deprivation provided by the Index of Multiple Deprivation.

Based on the government calculation that each troubled family costs public services an average of £75,000 a year, the estimated number of families in the borough could be costing LBWF and its partners approximately £57 million per annum.

There are many potential benefits for Waltham Forest to driving forwards family based approach, including reduced duplication across public services, preventing the escalation of families into more resource intensive support services (avoidance), and improved outcomes by effective multi-agency activity.

The government have also indicated that they will set a number of outcomes for local authorities and their partners to achieve in order to access payment by results funding including;

• ensuring children are back into school

• reducing criminal and anti-social behaviour

• helping parents back into work, and

Version: 0.1


• reducing the costs to the taxpayer and local authorities.

As a result the leader of the council and the chief executive have indicated their support for adopting such a programme, citing existing examples of Family orientated work such as the Gang programmes and the development of the Families Directorate as examples of best practice that Waltham Forest could build upon.

The following steps have been undertaken locally to progress this agenda;

• Key internal and external stakeholders engaged and consulted on programme

• Visits undertaken by Chief Executive and Troubled Families coordinator to DCLG to discuss initiative and demonstrate support.

• Draft Proposal on Troubled Families produced and submitted to DCLG.

• Analysis of accessible datasets commenced.

• Software and Expertise providers approached to support the borough’s analysis.

• Rowan House (YOT site), identified as suitable site to access data and conduct analysis.

• DCLG Troubled Families Framework Issued.

• Programme Board member identified and first meeting arranged.

• Links established with related projects (e.g. MASH)

The current proposal submitted to the DCLG outlines a model which would require the review and development of service plans and core processes to ensure that all other relevant services and partnership structures operate in a manner that supports the whole family working ethos. These cultural changes would be led through the creation of a Troubled Families unit which would develop the processes and protocols for mainstream services to adopt and provide some additional capacity for quality assurance and the management of specific cases that do not match referral pathways / thresholds of main stream services.

This process was based on a review of previous evaluations of the Family Intervention Projects and other ‘Team Around the Children’ initiatives. As a result the proposal rejected the options to create a completely separate workstream or attempt to use existing services without additional support.

Failure to fully implement the programme by Waltham Forest could have a number of negative impacts including;

• Reputational impact due to Waltham Forests publicised interest in supporting the scheme to date.

• Inability to draw down approximately £3m in central government funding allocated to support the local programme.

• Overlooked opportunity to align the Family Directorate’s transition with the Troubled Family framework.

• Missed opportunity to engage partners in Waltham Forest’s new more family orientated approach using the central government mandate.

Version: 0.1


• Risk of continued failure to tackle the Troubled Families cohort in a joined up approach, which is costing public services in the borough an estimated £57 million a year.

2 VISION

Given the potential scale of the potential cohort and the time scales necessary to deliver a model, the structure will have to provide a holistic and flexible approach to be fully successful.

It is therefore proposed that Waltham Forest should adopt the following approach;

• A new troubled families unit with capacity to lead and coordinate the programme, as well as deliver intensive support to elements of the cohort identified as the greatest priority.

• Aligned existing services and projects to provide additional capacity and make sure that existing core programmes deliver outcomes that are synchronised and complementary to the whole family working approach.

• Review and development of service plans and core processes so that all relevant services and partnership structures operate in a manner that supports the whole family working ethos, (led by senior management and the specialist unit).

LBWF and our partners recognise that there are many potential benefits to driving forward such an approach, including reduced duplication across public services, preventing the escalation of families into more resource intensive support services (avoidance), and improved outcomes by effective multi-agency activity.

Based on LBWF and its partners current priorities the most significant impacts that the programme will address at the family level will include:

• violence (particularly domestic and gang related violence):

• housing issues:

• child protection concerns:

• at edge of taking children into care

• inappropriate levels of caring :

• school attendance:

• anti-social behaviour:

• substance misuse:

• worklessness.

• poor levels of attainment at school

Within these priorities LBWF and its partners will ensure that the programme captures and deliver tangible improvements in the outcomes indicated by DCLG as required;

• ensuring children are back into school

• reducing criminal and anti-social behaviour

• helping parents back into work, and

• reducing the costs to the taxpayer and local authorities.

Version: 0.1


This also has direct financial benefits for local public services. The DfE Family Saving Calculator estimates, on average, savings of between £64,000 and £77,000 a year associated with providing family intervention activity. The York Consulting evaluation of pathfinder programmes tackling Families with Multiple Problems as estimated potentials savings of £1.90 for every £1 spent in this manner. Given the estimated average cost of each family to public services of £75,000, this would provide Waltham Forest and its partners with the opportunity to make significant financial savings in addition to the government funding on offer.

This initiative offers the potential for referral and after care / transitional pathways to be joined up and coordinated more effectively across services, thereby reducing bureaucracy, inefficiency and cost to public providers, whilst also improving the potential outcomes and the overall experience of engaging with services for the family.

Waltham Forest would look to develop its own financial return on investment model to measure impact, using existing resources such as the Think Family toolkit and local measures to understand the cost benefit ratios of delivering interventions under the troubled families’ agenda. It is envisaged this will be achieved by avoiding duplication and where appropriate preventing escalation into more cost intensive services.

In addition to reducing bureaucracy, inefficiency and cost to public providers, this initiative offers the opportunity to improve potential outcomes and the overall experience of engaging with services for the family. A critical element in successfully delivering this programme will be to ensure that families feel proactively engaged in the process as enfranchised stakeholders and not ‘troublesome’ families to be dealt with.

3 STRATEGIC FIT

3.1 The project aligns with a number of corporate and partnership priorities including;

• The key principles of the Residents First Strategy;

o Focus on what residents want and need by analysing and identifying the 760 families that most need multi-agency support over the next 3 years.

o Make it easy to access all of our services through the development of family centric, assessment, referral and intervention pathways in a joined up approach rather than requiring families to engage with different services through a multitude of different processes and engagement criteria.

o Provide excellent customer care by driving culture change through the programme and offering more effective, joined up and sustainable outcomes.

o Make every penny count by identifying and delivering cashable cost savings and cost efficiencies by reducing duplication of effort and delivering improved outcomes for families within the cohort to develop their capacity to support family members.

o Tell residents how we are performing by monitoring and evaluating the programme so that we can communicate the cost savings and improved outcomes for Families as a result of the programme.

• The development of the Families Directorate to deliver more ‘Family centric’ services

• The increasing focus on managing risk across families and other identified groups in our communities with partners such as Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs (MASH), Integrated Offender Management (IOM) and vulnerable victims of Anti-Social Behaviour.

• Waltham Forest’s increasing responsibility for the Health and Well Being of our residents including the adoption of public health duties from 2013-14.

Version: 0.1


3.2 Based on the equality impact assessment undertaken, this programme has to consider the following issues (to be completed based on EIA of final cohort).

4 PROGRAMME OUTCOMES

4.1 Programme Outcomes

In order to achieve the intended vision and meet the government’s payment criteria the following outcomes will have to be achieved for at least 760 families by April 2015 where they are relevant;

• Children in the household have fewer than 3 fixed exclusions and less than 15% of unauthorised absences in the last 3 consecutive school terms

• A 60% reduction in anti-social behaviour across the family in the last 6 months or offending rate by all minors in the family reduced by at least 33% in the last 6 months

• At least one adult household member ‘progresses to work’ through referral to the Reed in Partnership service or achieves ‘continuous employment’ and has moved off working age benefits through a scheme other than Reed’s.

• Measurable improvement in the locally determined criteria

The programme will also look to support the delivery of a number of local outcomes including;

• Reduce % incidents of repeat Domestic violence.

• Improve the proportion of adults in contact with secondary mental health services in paid employment.

• Improve effective outcomes for substance misuser’s (including Alcohol).

• Reduce the number of households living in Temporary Accommodation.

• Reduce Serious Youth Violence.

• Reduce the number of young people entering custody.

• Reduce % of young people who are NEET

• Reduce the number of children entering care.

• Reduce Rate of under 18 conceptions per 1,000 population

• Increase the number of CAF’s

• Achievement gap between pupils eligible for free school meals and peers at GCSE including E&M

• Achieve ‘cost avoidance / efficiency’ savings of at least £1.90 for every £1 spent.

5 SCOPE

5.1 In Scope

The scope of the programme over the next 3 years is to;

It is therefore proposed that Waltham Forest consider adopting elements of all three approaches in developing and implementing a new troubled families agenda. To achieve this LBWF and partners will:

• Develop a new troubled families structure with capacity to lead and coordinate the programme, as well as deliver intensive support to elements of the cohort identified as the greatest priority.

Version: 0.1


• Incorporate or aligning existing services and projects to provide additional capacity and make sure that existing core programmes deliver outcomes that are synchronised and complementary to the whole family working approach.

• Review and development of service plans and core processes to ensure that all other relevant services and partnership structures operate in a manner that supports the whole family working ethos, (led by senior management and the specialist unit).

• Develop appropriate business processes and information sharing protocols to support the Troubled Families Agenda

• Establish IT structures to support the use of all professional databases by those agencies that are part of the Troubled Families Programme

• Ensure that intelligence sharing and problem solving processes are in place to support programme, including the ability to monitor and evaluate the outcomes from interventions, (focusing on risk management and cost avoidance indicators).

• Develop all structures, processes and protocols in conjunction with the development of the Families Directorate, MASH and IOM programmes.

5.2 Out of Scope

The following items are recognised as out of scope:

• Ongoing development of the Families Directorate (other than consultation input related to this programme)

• Development and delivery of mainstream services for individuals outside of the Troubled Families Cohort.

6 BENEFITS STRATEGY

An outline description of the benefits or type of benefits that should be delivered from the new capability:

Benefit Measure Target Timeframe

1.Improve educational attendance

School recorded unauthorised absences / fixed term exclusions

Children in the household have fewer than 3 fixed exclusions and less than 15% of unauthorised absences in the last 3 consecutive school terms

Children (where target relevant) in up to 633 families;

Yr 1 – 211 families



2.Reduce offending levels

Under 18’s identified as committing a proven offence.

Offending rate reduced by at least 33% in the last 6 months

Families with under’s 18’s who meet this criteria As above

3. Drop in ASB committed.

Formal ASB interventions (ASBO, ASBIs etc.) recorded by

A 60% reduction in anti-social behaviour across the family in the

Any family that meet this criteria as above.

Version: 0.1


council, Police or Social Housing providers.

last 6 months

4. Delivery of local criteria e.g.

• violence (particularly domestic and gang related violence):

• housing issues:

• child protection concerns:

• inappropriate levels of caring :

• alcohol and substance misuse:

• mental health and learning disability issues

TBC TBC Any family that meet this criteria as above.

5.Achieve payment of the government funding on offer

Payment of Government funding each year based on delivery by results for each family engaged.

Target to be confirmed

Timeframe to be confirmed

6. Deliver local cost benefits.

Estimated cost avoidance savings for each intervention delivered to a troubled family. (based on government estimates £10K per family).

Average of £1.90 efficiency savings for every £1 spent – dependent on KPI 5.

Timeframe to be confirmed

7. Reinvestment of programme savings into other high priority families with.

Improved outcomes of those listed at bottom of section 4

TBC TBC but would expect to start from year 2 onwards

Benefits 1-4 will be measured as part of the ongoing monitoring and evaluation requirements of the DCLG’s funding conditions and will form an integral part of the programme’s performance management processes, with at least quarterly reporting mechanisms.

Benefits 5-6 could be calculated once the figures for benefits 1 – 4 have been collated and confirmed.

Version: 0.1


Benefit 7 would enable Waltham forest and partners to track the broader benefits of the programme in enabling reinvestment of resource into a much broader set of service users which could be tracked by setting stretch targets to existing indicators from year 2 and / or tracking the reallocation of resources to these families. This would be dependent on the criteria set out in benefit 4.

7 ASSUMPTIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND EXTERNAL FACTORS

7.1 Assumptions

Programme-level assumptions made so far:

• Commitment by senior multi-agency partners to the establishment of the model

• Ability to influence business priorities of multiple services and partner agencies

• Continued commitment of DCLG to the programme including provision of funding promised to date

• Implementation of legal gateways necessary to share information regarding cohort.

• The existence of 760 families within the borough that meet the required criteria.

• Successful completion of the proposed creation of a Families Directorate.

7.2 Constraints

Known difficulties or constraints that may affect the Programme:

• Identification and provision of staff from each service / agency to create Troubled Families Unit

• Cultural transformation required within a relatively short period of time including a review of referral pathways, service thresholds etc.

• Development of trust between partners to enable a single multi-agency lead to act as ‘case lead’ families.

• Ability to establish required IT / database Infrastructure within the timescale to ensure effective monitoring and case management of families.

• Resource implications of (quickly) developing the information sharing, management and analytical support requirements to underpin the programme – especially the evaluation requirements given the potential scale.

• Lack of clarity regarding legal information sharing gateways for monitoring the cohort beyond the initial identification process (no guidance issued by ICO to date).

• No additional funding resources other than government funding to develop and sustain the programme as a system developed in parallel to mainstream services.

• Lack of direct control over the Reed in Partnership employability contract which is held directly with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

7.3 Dependencies

• Commitment by Senior Partners across Social Care, Education, Youth Offending, Police, Job centre Plus and Probation, to supporting the initiative and providing appropriate levels of staffing – preferably through existing partnership structures (e.g. Health and Well Being Board)

• Time/availability of key staff to be involved, due to other change management priorities (i.e. Families Directorate), in the programme and project boards.

Version: 0.1


• Availability of ‘expert practitioners’ to resource the Troubled Families Unit.

• External pressure to deliver several overlapping programmes (MASH, IOM etc.) as soon as possible

• Support from all agencies ICT and Information Management departments to support development of systems and the sharing of information.

• Identification of suitable office location for Troubled Families Unit

• Creation of a suitable analytical and monitoring resource

• Provision of government ‘seed’ funding to invest in necessary start up requirements (analysts, software etc,)

• Ability to refer suitable family members into Reed in Partnership employability schemes.

7.4 External Factors

There are a number of external factors that may have a direct impact on Waltham Forest’s ability to deliver against the outcomes set out in this document. These include;

• Changes in ASB tools and powers following the government’s consultation process in early 2011 (expected to come into effect by Spring 2013), which may effect the ability to intervene effectively and/ or monitor outcomes consistently.

• The potential impact of the Olympics in first two quarters of the programme on services ability to start up and deliver a new programme.

• Development of other central government initiatives such as the expansion of Community Budgeting, which set competing / over lapping targets to access funds.

• Changes to the Welfare benefits system, which may change the composition of Families within the borough and the ability to consistently measure outcomes if defined benefits are changed.

• Staggered roll out of capped Housing benefits which may alter the composition of the Troubled Families cohort within the borough.

• Any review of the current DWP employability contract may impact on the borough’s ability to refer service users into this programme and claim payment.

• The development of new policies and priorities by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime which will control a number of linked budgets (DIP, CSP grant etc.) in 2012/13 and 2013/14 and may require the borough to alter it plans and strategies accordingly.

• Future national reductions in other funding sources (e.g. Youth Offending Home Office Funding in 2014/15), that may constrain the ability of mainstream services to continue to provide the support required to deliver the desired outcomes.

8 APPROACH

To deliver an effective programme there are a number of key requirements which previous practice suggest are critical to delivery that will mitigate the risks outlined above.

8.1 Strong leadership at all levels and across Stakeholder agencies;

Given the breadth of issues presented by families and the range of services that will need to be brought to bear, there will need to be strong management buy in across public sector organisations to deliver the intended outcomes. This will require investment of money and resources through the realignment of business priorities and processes to achieve. A key

Version: 0.1


element of this will be the championing of the agenda at senior management level and its incorporation into decision-making and service planning processes. In addition to the appointment of senior level leader to champion the agenda the local authority will establish a programme governance board. This group will include stakeholders from children and adult services, community safety, health, probation, police and the YOT. Further links will also be developed with Job centre Plus, Schools/Colleges, RSLs and Reed in Partnership

This group will have a multiagency responsibility for implementing the initial stages of the proposal and setting in chain the cultural and business process changes necessary across these key stakeholders to deliver the identified outcomes, and set out a process that can be used to evaluate and evidence the impact of the programme. To achieve this group will need to ensure the programme has a defined scope to deliver cross cutting aims and objectives, which will be reflected in the group’s terms of reference.

8.2 Clear Aims and Objectives;

The provision of strong leadership by the Programme Governance Board and the development of an evidence base should enable the setting of clear aims and objectives for the project across a range of services.

Within the aims and objectives set out by the governance group the development of appropriate family orientated assessment and referral tools that can be used in a multi-agency context will be a priority. This will determine how risk is assessed and how capacity within services is best utilised, based on a set of agreed thresholds for key services and the ability for services to hold each other to account for delivering specific actions when supporting the identified cohort. If this is not achieved services may be mismatched in regard to need and it will cause difficulties in trying to understand how to implement strategic changes in the development of services.

8.3 Embracing the Principles as Corporate Priorities

Where PbR is the only funding source available there can be risks to the service provider both in terms of cash flow to invest in start up costs and run the programme until the desired outcomes are achieved and/or the potential loss of income if the agreed targets are not met. This could in theory lead to conservatism in delivery rather than innovation, with providers focusing on a narrow range of services that are known to produce acceptable results, rather than innovating at the risk of failure and little or no payment as a result.

Given the size of the Troubled Families cohort however it is expected that other than the additional funding received by government, existing mainstream council/partner resources will be re-aligned to fund the programme. This will minimise the financial impact to the council and ensure sustainability of the approach longer term.

All aspects of service provision across the different tiers of service provision (universal, targeted, specialist and statutory), will need to eventually adapt to support a family based approach if the longer term benefits are to be realised. If the concept is not embraced by the council as a whole then capacity within the dedicated and co-opted units is likely to be unable to meet identified need, especially if the processes are not in place either to manage families back down service tiers at an appropriate pace or escalate families to statutory services where additional risk is uncovered.

To achieve this will require considerable planning and development work within the local authority in consultation with key stakeholders. The development of the dedicated resource should support this by providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate the benefits of the approach and thereby overcome any cultural or organisational resistance to change.

Version: 0.1


8.4 Effective information and intelligence management resource;

To underpin this programme the ability to collate and analyse information and intelligence from internal services and partners will be critical in identifying and assessing risk (and thereby leading too improved targeting of resources and better outcomes).

A needs assessment identifying and segmenting our existing service users to identify appropriate families is the first key step in driving this programme forward and is currently being undertaken at time of writing. Moving forward the LBWF and its partners will be looking to rapidly develop a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH), to improve information exchange and enable risks to be properly identified and managed.

To this end a number of steps are being taken including;

• The mapping and segmentation of information into primary (needed to identify cohort) and secondary ( to understand risk factors affecting cohort) datasets.

• Engagement with key software suppliers to begin scoping process for the implementation of a system that can minimise double keying, data storage and cleansing issues, whilst enabling the identification, management and evaluation of troubled families cases with minimum of staffing resources.

• Approach the Metropolitan Police Service with a business case to bid for Police funds in order to develop pa ‘MASH plus’ model that would encompass Troubled Families.

• Ongoing meetings with Interface Associates to develop risk-profiling matrix to identify and assess families’ pre and post intervention.

• YOS and Gang cohorts identified as the immediate starting point for analysis and profiling needed to commence activity in the short term.

This information resource will be utilised to generate the evidence base and cost benefit data in order to demonstrate the impact of the programme and support the borough’s ability to access DCLG funding streams.

9 PROJECT PORTFOLIO

The following projects / work streams will be included as part of this programme;

• Troubled Families Intelligence

• Multi-Agency Family Intervention Practice

• MASH.

• Finance

• Communication (To be activated from September 2012)

Troubled Families Intelligence

The aim of this project is to put in place processes and align resources to;

• Agree key datasets and put in place appropriate information sharing protocols between partners

• Identify and profile the 760 families in the cohort.

• Develop an analytical resource that will analyse, monitor and problem solve families based on risk / cost factors, and provide Troubled Family intelligence products to ifnor decision making processes.

Version: 0.1


• Put in place an evaluation framework to ensure the partnership can demonstrate cost efficiencies, draw down government processes and ensure robust local knowledge management and best practice processes are in place.

• .Ensure that multi-agency case load management is in place and complements the principles outlined above

• Oversee the procurement of any ICT requirements necessary to meet the needs of the programme.

Multi-Agency Family Intervention Practice

• Map existing multi-agency processes that are relevant to troubled families cohort (e.g. Fair Access Panel, ASBRAC and Gangs project)

• Review and assess current multi-agency thresholds

• Identify gaps/recommend the alteration of existing processes and/or the creation of new structures to deliver intended outcomes.

• Develop appropriate multi-agency case referral assessment and management processes including minimum standards.

• Development of the family based risk matrix with key stakeholders and including consideration of;

o minimising the data monitoring and case management resource implications

o creating an underpinning family risk assessment tool that can be used by main-stream service whilst minimising duplication of existing systems

o enables the assessment of risk / harms pre and post programme intervention(s)

o incorporates a cost avoidance model

• Put forward recommendations for the implementation and resourcing of a Troubled Families unit to sustain programme activity and delivered target interventions to families that do not ‘fit’ existing thresholds and pathways.

• Develop protocols and pathways to identify families accessing services across borough boundaries.

• Provide evidence-based recommendations on the most cost effective interventions to achieve the government payment related outcomes based on analysis carried out by the Intelligence work stream and a desktop review of national and local best practice.

• Develop an appropriate suite of interventions for different archetypal families (linked to risk matrix)

• Develop minimum standards for Family Lead Professionals.

• Set up quality assurance / audit processes to ensure compliance with processes and procedures including Safeguarding etc.

• Oversee commissioning of an additional services required to deliver intended outcomes.

Finance:

• Oversee the application for and draw down of DCLG funding.

• Measure programme spend against the delivery of DCLG payment outcomes.

• Manage the budget to deliver sustainable outcomes over the 3-year period.

Version: 0.1


• Monitor the partnerships target to draw down at least 90% of the available DCLG funding.

• Identify and assess risks to achieving financial targets.

MASH (Project):

• Deliver a 4 stage approach to the implementation of a Waltham Forest MASH is starting with an immediate co-location of social services staff with Police followed by;

o the creation of an with adolescents (10-18) MASH based at Rowan House within 6 weeks;

o expansion to all Children (0-18) within 6 months;

o and incorporation of Vulnerable Adults (further definition of cohort required), within the next 3 years.

• Identify and co-locate a multi agency staff team to include children’s Social Care, Health, Youth Offending, Police and Probation to form the MASH.

• Develop appropriate business processes and information sharing protocols to support the MASH

• Establish IT structures to support the use of all professional databases by those agencies that are part of the MASH.

• Develop all structures, processes and protocols in conjunction with the development of the Troubled Families and IOM programmes.

Communication (to be activated September 2012)

This project will aim to deliver the following outcomes;

Raise awareness of the Troubled Families programme across partnership agencies

• Promote cultural changes in working practices to embrace the Troubled Families ethos.

• Develop and implement targeted communications plan including;

o Development of awareness materials

o Training events

o Implementation of new processes and structures

• Assess penetration of Troubled Families into partner agencies and support remedial steps where appropriate.

Disseminate positive outcomes from programme internally (case studies, recognition of best practice etc.) and externally (cost savings, positive outcomes etc).

10 RISKS

The following high-level risks have been identified; these will be transferred to the Programme Risk Log and maintained throughout the life of the Programme:

No Description L 1 I

2 Countermeasure(s)

1 Likelihood

Version: 0.1



2 Countermeasure(s)

1 Lack of strong leadership to drive forward transformative change to wards a multi-agency, family orientated approach

H/M/L

2

H/M/L

5

Presentations to be conducted at relevant partnership structures (e.g. SafetyNet, Health and Well Being and Safeguarding Boards) to secure Partnership SMT buy in.

Chief Executive and Leader expressed support and commitment for initiative.

2 Scope creep or ill-defined objectives 3 3 Creation of Programme Brief and definition of local criteria.

3. Cultural resistance to changing main stream services, which prevents new systems from becoming embedded as core business

4 4 Development of dedicated communications workstream / project to drive cultural awareness. Creation of Troubled Families unit to champion change. Buy in from SMT, including review of service plans by Year 2 of programme.

4. Lack of adequate information and intelligence sharing process, which may place an unsustainable administrative burden on managing the programme

4 4 Creation of dedicated project/ workstream to focus on intelligence processes. Nomination of lead role within Community Safety to progress agenda. Scoping of software options to support process. Acknowledgment of analytical resource as an investment priority.

5 The risk of partners failing to engage in process – seen a council programme.

2 5 Involvement of senior partner stakeholders for initial stages of programme. Creation of multi-agency programme board. Formal links with Health and Well Being Board.

6. Over reliance on the government funding to develop and sustain the programme in parallel to mainstream services

2 3 Development of investment strategy through work conducted by Intelligence and Family Intervention work streams to determine;

i) Gaps in existing staff

ii) An acceptable post / fund ratio.

iii) Look at how broader / long term savings from the programme can be identified and reinvested.

Inability to meet Yr 1 quota due to 2 month delay in DCLG guidance, barriers to information sharing, Olympics and need to set up the programme from scratch

4 3 Set up workstreams t of focus on delivery in yr1 as a priority. Use consultancy support to provide additional resource to key workstreams. Look at broad as cohort as possible in year 1. Manage expectation regarding the likelihood and consequences of not meeting year 1 quota on time.

7. Failure to evidence delivery of government outcomes, leading to a reduction in predicted funding / financial exposure.

3 4 Seek clarity from DCLG on current funding conditions. Invest in developing appropriate monitoring and evaluation frameworks to demonstrate outcomes. Set local targets to drive payment results.

2 Impact

Version: 0.1



2 Countermeasure(s)

8. Inability to use formal measures to ensure compliance / engagement of DWP work programme provider.

4 2 Seek further advice and guidance from DCLG on options available to influence provider. Invite local provider to engage in programme board.

9. Legal gateways necessary to share information regarding cohort on an ongoing basis not identifiable.

3 4 Further guidance provided by DCLG on ongoing monitoring of cohort. Existing tried and tested gateways e.g. CSP sharing protocol reviewed and utilised wherever possible. Use of Interface Associates expertise.

10. Inability to identify 760 families meeting prescribed criteria.

5 4 Analysis conducted on a broader basis than current prescribed criteria. ‘Local factor’ developed to identify several potential factors that would enable families to qualify based on ‘cost’. Consider expansion beyond PBR expansion depending on legal information sharing powers.

11. Key staff lack wherewithal to be involved in programme management, due to other change management priorities (i.e. Families Directorate)

4 3 Setting up of formal programme management process, with clear internal and partnership mandate to identify this as a high priority. Alignment of objectives with other projects / priorities to reduce duplication and encourage engagement.

12. Transferral of ‘expert practitioners’ to resource the Troubled Families Unit, impractical due to current service demands.

3 3 Use of ‘virtual’ secondment, alignment with services who are already engaging with the same families (i.e. already part of existing workload), utilisation of funding resources where need is identified as most acute.

13. External pressure to deliver several overlapping programmes (MASH, IOM etc.) as soon as possible

3 2 Alignment of Troubled Families with other projects e.g. MASH, to reduce duplication and ensure coordination., including creation of joint processes, procurement of systems, use of resources etc.

14. IT compatibility / access issues across partners preventing effective, analysis, case management and evaluation.

4 4 Specific remit of Intelligence project / work stream. Identification ICT resources as a programme priority. Sourcing of ‘cloud’ ICT solution to reduce compatibility and re-keying issues. Flexibility in procured system to enable data uploads in multiple formats / processes.

11 TIMESCALES AND KEY MILESTONE DATES

11.1 Timescales

The programme is expected to run for three years, with a possible additional year to collate all of the final outcomes. As outlined above the engagement of families is expected to be staggered as;

• 211 families in year one

• 211 families in year 2

Version: 0.1


• 211 families in year 3

An additional 42 families each year will be monitored to assess the impact of Reed in Partnership and MST outcomes.

11.2 Key Milestone Dates

Ref Milestone Description Planned Date

1 Identify year one (Wave one) Families 30/08/2012

2 Identify local criteria through data sharing process with partners to identify and map the complete local cohort

30/08/2012

3 Set up project boards 06/08/2012

4 Develop a multi-agency response to create ‘seamless’ pathways and working practices that can engage with families

30/09/2012

5 Establish Phase One Troubled Families Unit 30/09/2012

6. Initiate work with Year One Families 30/09/2012

7 Develop intelligence sharing processes and resources (including the procurement of appropriate software packages) to effectively assess, monitor and evaluate the cohort.

31/10/2012

8 Review partnership and service priorities, processes and training to embed the concept of Troubled Families across the borough’s public sector.

10/01/2013

9 Initiate work with Year Two cohort 15/04/2013

10 Submit evidence for payment of Year One Family Outcomes 30/04/2013

11 Initiate work with Year Three cohort 15/04/2014

12 Submit evidence for payment of Year Two Family Outcomes 30/04/2014

13 Submit evidence for payment of Year Three Family Outcomes 30/04/2015

12 RESOURCES

12.1 Funding

DCLG has promised the following funding to set-up the project;

• £20K to identify and analyse the actual 760 families within the borough.

• £100K per year for the next 3 years to fund a Troubled Families Coordinator

To deliver the intended interventions DCLG has promised up to £4,000 for each Family with 80% paid upfront in year 1, 60% in year 2 and 40% in year 3. The remainder will be paid

Version: 0.1


once Waltham Forest has submitted evidence that the positive outcomes have been achieved.

The table below outlines the payment model for positive outcomes in more detail;

Education/Crime and ASB

Achieve all 3 of the measures below:

1) Children fewer than 3 fixed exclusions and less than 15% of unauthorised absences in the last 3 school terms

2) A 60% reduction in anti-social behaviour across the family in the last 6 months

3) Offending rate by all minors in the family reduced by at least 33% in the last 6 months

£3900 per

family

Work If they do not enter work but achieve the ‘progress to work’ achievement

£100 per family

or

Work At least one adult in the family has moved off working age benefits into continuous employment in the last 6 months (and does not lead to avoid double-payment)

£4000

This represents approximately £2,532,000 in potential funding in addition to the £320,000 already promised by DCLG over the 3 years.

Results will primarily rely on self-verification based on strong internal audit. There will be ‘spot checks’ in a small number of areas.

The DCLG consider this funding to represent 40% of the investment required to deliver the desired outcomes for each family. Waltham Forest and its partners are expected to align existing resources to provide the remaining 60% assumed necessary to deliver against the outcome criteria.

There may also be other opportunities to share costs and align resources with other projects which have some funding and shared objectives. A good example would be the MASH project (which is recommended become a project with the Troubled Families programme).

2012/13 Funding Proposal

Based on funding stream outlined above there is a total DCLG funding package of up to £964,000

for year one of the programme.

It is proposed that the funding I s utilised in the following manner:

• £495,000 is utilised to;

o Fund the co-ordinator post

o Create a Troubled Families Unit (and associated set-up costs)

o Procure external expertise to initiate the programme

o Purchase and develop IT systems to manage and evaluate the cohort

• The £169,000 payment on result is rolled over to 2013-14 to offset the reduction in the advance fee to £506,400.

Version: 0.1


• £300,000 to be allocated during 2012/13 on additional support and intervention capacity based on the recommendations of the Troubled Families Board.

The £495,000 spend can be summarised as follows;

Item Amount

Commission External Support to Set-up Programme £15,000

Information Systems (development and yr 1 licensing costs) £30,000

Senior Management Level Troubled Families Position £100,000

Troubled Families Unit ( estimated staffing costs) £335,000

Troubled Family Unit (Set-Up Costs e.g. IT hardware, Furniture, Phones

etc.)

£15,000

Total £495,000

There are also a number of options for Troubled Families Board to consider how to best utilise the remaining £300,000 such as:

• Additional employment of extra early intervention, targeted support and educational welfare resources to provide support to less complex families within the cohort.

• Investment in expanding existing specialist interventions and programmes such as the Multi-Systemic Therapy interventions currently being piloted by the YOT (approximately £10,000 per family)

• Training provision to ensure that a network of ‘family lead professionals’ are identified and developed across our mainstream services and partner agencies – this would provide capacity to which the Troubled families Unit could cascade policies, procedures and best practice in order to manage the majority of the cohort and embed the programme’s principles in a sustainable manner.

• Additional short term analytical capacity (6-9 months) may be required in order to identify such a large number of families across a diverse set of multi-agency datasets – this may also offset initial pressures to cleanse and reformat large volumes of data and develop the procured IT systems to a stage where processes can be streamlined.

• Commissioning of external services to provide additional support such as community based family peer support networks, one 2 one mentoring, diversionary activities, employability services, parenting classes, counselling etc.

Funding may also have to be considered in order to resource seconded roles from other agencies, although it is recommended that partners are encourage to provide support on the basis that this will result in direct costs savings to their services.

12.2 Staff

Not fully determined yet, but may include;

Version: 0.1


• Troubled Families Delivery Manager

• Troubled Families / MASH Coordinator

• Troubled Families Senior Practitioner / Family Support Lead

• Troubled Families Key Worker / Educational Attendance Lead

• Troubled Families Key Worker / Traveller Family Lead

• Analyst

• Senior Administrators x 2

• Seconded staff to from Job Centre Plus, Probation, Social Services, and Early Intervention & Prevention. YOT, Police, Mental Health, Education (dependent on identified need).

12.3 Other

There will be considerable ICT requirements from existing data sources that will also require additional software to collate, process and analyse the information. Depending on the chosen site for the multi-agency Troubled Families unit additional ICT requirements may include installing partner ICT equipment into the agreed office space.

13 STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT

The Programmes key stakeholders and/or delivery partners include likely to be represented on the programme boards include;

Role Organisation

Executive Director Environment & Regeneration LBWF

Director Children and Adult Social Care LBWF

Detective Superintendent MPS (Police)

Interim Divisional Director Children & Families LBWF

Interim Director Development & Leisure LBWF

Assistant Chief Officer London Probation

Public Health Director LBWF / PCT

Representative Job Centre Plus

Head Teacher (SPOC) Schools / Colleges

Deputy Chief Executive (SPOC) RSLs / Ascham Homes

Representative Reed in Partnership

Other key stakeholders include;

• Families identified as part of the cohort

• Staff working with Children in partner agencies identified to drive the necessary outcomes: Health Probation, Police, Youth Offending Services, Early Intervention and Prevention, Social Care, Education and Housing.

Version: 0.1


• All managers who will be supervising the above staff

• Councillors

• Chief Executive (LBWF)

• Community members, including schools and voluntary sector providers

• IOM Project lead

• Health and Well Being Board

• SafetyNet

• Children’s Health and Well Being Board

• Adult Safeguarding Board

• Children’s Safeguarding Board

Many of the stakeholders have already been engaged through one to one meetings, management team briefings and consultations via email on draft proposals. They will be engaged in the process via the programme board and its sub groups. Other stakeholders will be managed either through regular submission of highlight reports for senior managers or as part of the communications plan.

To ensure that the appropriate partnership boards are engaged and coordinate partnership activity, the programme board will report to the Health and Well Being Board. The remaining Partnership Boards will have a designated SPOC on the programme board that will be tasked to provide regular updates.

13.1 Communications Plan

The communications plan will be run the Communications project group.

14 PROGRAMME GOVERNANCE

14.1 Programme Board

Programme Boards will start off fortnightly with regularity reviewed during the life of the project. The membership of the Programme Board has been agreed as follows:

Role Name

Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) Shifa Mustapha

Programme Manager Daniel Phelps

Version: 0.1


Role Name

Other Stakeholders Ellie O'Connor,

Glynnis Joffe,

Hannah Celia,

Jo Murphy,

Job Centre Plus Rep (tbc),

Julian Lee,

Kay Eilbert,

Kofi Adu,

Lynnette Parvez,

Mary Pilgrim,

Nicky Pace,

Steven Boyes,

Susan Andersen Carr

Mario Demetriou

Others (MASH Project Sponsor) Alan Adams

14.2 Programme Structure

The structure of the programme in terms of projects and stakeholders is shown in Appendix A.

14.3 Programme Reporting

Projects / Work Streams will submit monthly Project Highlight Reports to the Programme Manager. The Programme Manager will compile a Programme Highlight Report from the Project Highlight Reports for presentation to the Programme Board. The Programme Board may examine Project Highlight Reports if the project is deemed at RED status.

Version: 0.1

of 25 Date: dd/mm/yyyy Author: Max Carter

APPENDIX A - PROGRAMME STRUCTURE

Programme Board

SRO: Shifa Mustafa, Programme Manager: Daniel Phelps, Business Change Manager: Mario Demetriou Other Stakeholders: Ellie O'Connor, Glynnis Joffe, Hannah Celia, Jo Lipsom, Jo Murphy, Job Centre Plus Rep (tbc), Julian Lee, Kay Eilbert, Kofi Adu, Lynnette

Parvez, Mary Pilgrim, Nicky Pace, Steve Boyes, Susan Andersen Carr

MASH

Project Sponsor: Alan Adams / Daniel Phelps

Project Manager: Denise Humphries

Other Programmes

Other Programmes

Multi-Agency Family

Intervention

Practice

Sponsor: Daniel Phelps

Lead: Ellanora Clarke

Intelligence

Sponsor: Ellie

O’Connor

Lead: Tracey Hunt

Communication

(Not Active)

Sponsor:

Lead:

Project Workstreams

Finance

Monitoring

Sponsor: Steve Boyes

Lead: Kofi Adu

Implementation of Troubled Families Programme in Waltham ...€¦ · Waltham Forest would look to...

Documents

Transcript of Implementation of Troubled Families Programme in Waltham ...€¦ · Waltham Forest would look to...