Birmingham City Council
Identifying and Working with Troubled Families in Practice
Identifying and Working with Troubled Families in
Practice

Identifying Families under the Troubled Families
Programme


Working with Troubled Families in Practice:
Case Study: Communities Based Budgets Pathfinder
for Families with Complex Needs
Emerging Troubled Families Delivery Model
Identification – The Theory




National estimates of 120,000 Troubled Families based
on 2005 Family and Child Survey 2005
Focus on poverty/low income, poor health/mental health,
unemployment, poor housing, no qualifications
Using this model Birmingham has estimated 4,180
Troubled Families
Troubled Families Programme Guidance published
March 2012, confirmed national identification criteria as:




Youth crime/ASB
Truancy/school exclusion
Worklessness
Local discretion to consider other factors
Identification – The Practice


Our data tells us that cases meeting all 3 national
criteria will only make up around 7% of our TF target,
mismatch between sets of criteria.
Local additional criteria therefore become critical,
currently under consideration:





Free school meals take up
Adult offenders at risk of re-offending
Those in treatment for drug & alcohol problems
Child Protection Plan Cases
Confident we can identify 2,600 families this year and
the remainder next year.
Identification – The Issues

Data quality problems across systems, eg address formats

Data access/co-ordination challenges eg RSLs and ASB data

DWP overwhelmed by task of checking benefit status of potential
Troubled Families, slow response is likely to delay full identification
of families

Need for new systems to handle, analyse and report on vast
quantities of data


Criteria don’t include some potentially important issues, for example
around health/mental health
Appropriate level of data to pass to lead practitioners needs to be
worked through – benefits data, police intelligence etc
But That’s The Easy Bit – What’s Next?

Data Analysis – identifies 2,600 families this year

Verification through multi-agency assessment team, create family
case file, identify most appropriate service to make contact with
family

Main Service Area (e.g. YOS/IFST/PRU etc) make first contact and
make family ‘offer’

Main Service Area draw in agencies for fCAF Multi Agency
Assessment and Integrated Support Plan – to focus on achieving
Troubled Families Outcomes

Build capacity within service areas to engage with the approx 50%
of families not already worked with in some way

Commencing now with 120 known Troubled Families
Working with Troubled Families In Practice:
CBB FCN Case Study

Birmingham one of 16 national CBB pathfinders for
Families with Complex needs

Work with families with five or more needs

Design and align services better around needs of
families

Maintain affordability for required services, within a
context of reducing expenditure

Work with 160 in 2011/12 in Shard End and 4,180 citywide by 2015
Why Shard End? “risk index” by ward
Kingstanding
“control”
site
Shard
End
pilot
CBB FCN – Main Partners









Birmingham City Council: Children, Young People & Families,
Adults & Communities, Housing & Constituencies and
Development Directorate
Be Birmingham – Local Strategic Partnership
Jobcentre Plus
Health Sector Partners
West Midlands Police
Schools and Children’s Centres
Drug & Alcohol Action Team and service providers
Domestic Violence agencies and groups
Voluntary / Community Sector Organisations
Family CAF Business Process
15
Working
Days
Pre Assessment
Checklist
May include early screening tools &
risk assessments eg SDQ, DAS, CAT
etc
Section 1
Section 1
Core demographic details& existing
service involvement
Family
Details
15
Working
Days
Section 2
Section 3
Section 2
exactly the same as existing CAF. All
children on the 1 form
Children’s
Assessment
Adult
Assessment
Section 3
general assessment of needs &
existing service assessment
Section 4
Analysis
& conclusion
Section 4
Consent obtained
(if not already)
Analysis of needs & which services to
involve
15
Working
Days
Integrated Support
Plan
Maximum
6
months
Integrated Support
Plan Review
Evaluation of actions put in place, next
steps required & new needs identified
& planned
KPI Target
Summative
Evaluation
Summative evaluation of over-all
satisfaction
KPI Target
Episode
End
‘Contract’ with family & agencies – who
will do what by when.
Evidence Based Programmes
Public Health Approach to Early Intervention & Prevention
For All Families in the Shard End CBB Area
0 to 18 Years – Early Intervention & Prevention Evidence Based Programmes
FNP
Family
Nurse
Partnership
Incredible
Years
Parenting
Programme
Triple P
PATHS
Parenting
Programme
Promoting
Alternative
Thinking
Strategies
Pre birth
up to 2yrs for
first time
Teenage mum
Targeting all
3 – 4 year
olds with behaviour
problems
Targeting
4 – 6 year olds
With behaviour
Problems
Birmingham
Community Health
Trust
Integrated
Family Support
Team
Integrated Family
Support
Team
All primary aged
children commencing
In Reception & Yr1
11 CBB
Primary Schools
CBB Exemplar
Project:
Cost/Benefit Realisation
through fCAF
Unit cost for each partner
intervention gives cost of
each fCAF
(in aggregate gives
‘community budget’)
+
Projected savings for
each intervention/fCAF
(in aggregate is community
efficiency targets)
=
Beneficiaries tracked across
all partners gives actual
savings realised
CBB Budget Adjustments
Pilot Area Multi Agency fCAF/CAF Activity
Compared to the rest of the City
ANALYSIS OF 40 fCAFS UNDERTAKEN IN FEBRUARY 2012
ISSUE
Number
%
UNEMPLOYED
18
45
UNABLE TO ENFORCE RULES/BOUNDARIES
16
40
DVI VICT ADULT PERP
11
28
DEPRESSION
10
25
MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES
8
20
HOUSING ISSUES
8
20
DEBT
8
20
MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES EXT FAMILY
5
13
STRESS
5
13
PHYSICAL HEALTH ISSUES
5
13
DVI VICT CHILD PERP
3
8
BEH ISSUES
3
8
POOR HOUSEKEEPING
3
8
SEXUAL ABUSE HIST
2
5
DRUGS AND ALCOHOL
2
5
BEREAVEMENT
2
5
DVI PERP
1
3
DVI EXT FAM PERP
1
3
OFFENDING
1
3
Coordinating Services for Parents - What Parents Say:
Success
 fCAF makes complete sense! You cannot not address the needs of the children
without addressing the needs of the wider family.
 Relationship with key worker and family is key
 Families using FIP value the support provided.
 High awareness about PATHS so benefits of population wide public health
approaches.
Challenges
 Still relatively low awareness amongst families
 Parents often feel overwhelmed by the role of parenting but limited support
 Support parents earlier – not just when problems arise
 Lack of activities in the local area
 Lack of training and employment opportunities.
 Need to improve the ‘place’ as well as the ‘people’
What Partners Agencies Say
Successes



Partners value partnership working
fCAF helps unpick issues that might have been more difficult to address
through single agency interventions, e.g. the impact of alcohol misuse.
Sense amongst families and schools that things getting better
Challenges




Identification involving data sharing and analysis hugely problematic
Some agencies are still not actively participating
Need for greater realism on how long it takes to work with families.
One-off training for agencies will not suffice.
CBB Pathfinder – Next Steps

Evaluate impact of pathfinder

Roll out whole systems model city wide

Shard End Test bed are for Troubled Families
programme
Emerging Birmingham Model: Service Delivery
Troubled Families to be catalyst for systems change which
will:
 Embed ‘think family’ practice across whole system
 Be outcomes driven at all stages
 Adopt ‘whole systems approach’
 Build in demand reduction from outset
 Enable families to self determine issues and barriers
 Test new approaches e.g. personalised budgets
 Explore family contracting – reward and enforcement
models
 Leave a self sustaining service delivery model that
works without PbR support
Any Questions?
Contacts:
Bridget.kerrigan@birmingham.gov.uk
Tony.bunker@birmingham.gov.uk