Whole Essex Community Budgets
Programme
Families with Complex Needs (FCN)
Business Case
(February 2013 Revision)
FINAL Version 4.1
Version 4.1
This business case sets out the plans for and benefits of adopting a new multi-agency way of working
with disadvantaged families. This approach requires significant cultural change in the way in which all
agencies and professionals engage with and work with families and each other. It is important to note
that many of the aspects surrounding the partnership and operational implementation of the Family
Teams are to be fully developed and are therefore documented as proposals within this business case
and may be subject to change.
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
Table of Contents
1.
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 4
1.1 Summary of key changes and progress to date ............................................................................ 4
1.2 Proposition .................................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Background ................................................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Scope ............................................................................................................................................. 6
1.5 Cost / Benefit summary ................................................................................................................ 7
1.6 High Level Timetable ..................................................................................................................... 8
1.7 Asks of Partner Organisations/Government ................................................................................. 9
1.8 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 10
2. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 11
3. Strategic Case....................................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Objective ..................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2 ‘As Is’ situation ............................................................................................................................ 12
3.3 ‘As Is’ Description ........................................................................................................................ 13
3.4 ‘As Is’ – Financial ......................................................................................................................... 15
3.5 ‘To Be’ proposal .......................................................................................................................... 16
3.5.1. The key elements of the New Delivery Model ................................................................... 16
3.5.2. Evidence that the approach works ..................................................................................... 21
3.5.3. To Be – Financial ................................................................................................................. 23
3.5.4. Affordability ........................................................................................................................ 24
3.6 Policy Context ............................................................................................................................. 25
3.7 Strategic Fit ................................................................................................................................. 25
3.8 Dependencies, Risks, Constraints and Asks ................................................................................ 26
3.8.1. Dependencies ..................................................................................................................... 26
3.8.2. Risk Management ............................................................................................................... 27
3.8.3. Constraints .......................................................................................................................... 28
3.9 Asks of Partner Organisations/ Government .............................................................................. 28
3.9.1. Staff and Culture Change .................................................................................................... 29
3.9.2. Changes in Governance / political accountability .............................................................. 30
3.10 Impact on infrastructure ........................................................................................................... 30
3.10.1. Services ............................................................................................................................. 30
3.10.2. Buildings............................................................................................................................ 30
3.11 Procurement and contracts ...................................................................................................... 30
3.11.1. Procurement ..................................................................................................................... 30
3.11.2. Contracts........................................................................................................................... 31
4. Cost / Investment / Funding...................................................................................................... 31
4.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 31
4.2 As Is Model .................................................................................................................................. 33
4.3 To Be Model ................................................................................................................................ 33
4.4 Investment appraisal (Outcome Matrix)..................................................................................... 35
4.5 Savings......................................................................................................................................... 35
4.6 Benefits profile ............................................................................................................................ 37
5. Implementation Plan ............................................................................................................ 37
5.1 Phased delivery/change plan ...................................................................................................... 37
5.2 Detailed resource plan ................................................................................................................ 39
5.3 Stakeholder Engagement Plan .................................................................................................... 40
5.4 Benefits Realisation plan and method ........................................................................................ 41
5.5 Critical Success Factors ............................................................................................................... 41
6. Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 42
7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 43
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
1. Executive Summary
Update February 2013
The programme, bringing together Essex ‘troubled families’ and Community Budgets ‘Families with
Complex Needs’ is now called Family Solutions.
1.1 Summary of key changes and progress to date

From January 2013 the Government’s Troubled Families initiative, called Family
Solutions in Essex, merged with the Community Budgets Families with Complex Needs
programme to ensure the sustainability of Family Solutions in Essex and with a broader
remit to support families with multiple disadvantage. The whole merged programme is
now known as ‘Family Solutions’ (FS).

Four Family Solutions teams are already established in each quadrant, and the
programme is on track to establish a further four (two per quadrant) by October 2013.
The teams will be multi-disciplinary with staff from a range of backgrounds including
Education, drugs and alcohol, adult mental health, youth work, CAMHS and social work.

By summer 2013 there will be an information, advice and guidance hub. The hub will
offer information, advice and guidance to all partners, replacing CAFPoint and MAAGS
referrals. The hub will also be the central point of referral of any child into the Family
Solutions Teams across Essex. The hub and the teams will enable schools and other
partners to reduce the numbers of CAFs and lead professional roles that they undertake.

The financial model has been adjusted following discussions with partners. A realistic
assessment has been made of the funds available and the financial model has been
reviewed and revised accordingly. (See spreadsheet attached.) Schools Forum is being
asked to agree their contribution for the next two years on February 13th.

In the original Business Case there was a plan to develop a further four teams by 2015.
This ambition has been revised and there is currently no commitment to establish any
further teams. The impact and success of the initial eight teams will be assessed first
before any decision is taken to expand the programme further.

The specification for the Volunteering programme has been reduced in size reflecting the
revised financial commitment. The specification will be for 2 years January 2014 to
December 2015 with an initial maximum of 250 volunteers. The programme will be
closely monitored during this time to:
 Ensure there is sufficient finance available to support the programme
 Test the model’s impact and effectiveness before expanding

Detailed discussions have taken place and are continuing with partners to agree their
contribution to the programme. Generally resources in kind are being offered by District
and Borough Councils, primarily a staff member or shared staff member and the
possibility of premises in their localities for the teams to use, rather than a direct
financial contribution.

Due to the reorganisation of NHS commissioning, discussions are still in progress particularly
with the Clinical Commissioning Groups regarding staff and other contributions. These are
written into the development of the Integrated Health and Social Care commissioning plans.
Final version
4
Whole Essex Community Budgets

Business Case
The ‘asks’ of partners have been tailored to a more realistic estimation of resources available
and the programme adjusted accordingly. This is reflected in the revised financial plan
attached.
1.2 Proposition
The proposition is to establish a new approach across Essex to working holistically with
disadvantaged families with multiple difficulties to enable them to make significant changes and
improvements to their lives and thus reduce their dependence on high cost public services.
This new approach requires significant cultural change by and within all agencies and professionals
working with children and families, in working practices, in roles and responsibilities, in multi-agency
co-operation and in the way in which we all engage with families.
The new approach will:








Establish eight multi-disciplinary family teams across Essex from October 2013. Each team
will initially work intensively with up to 180 families from disadvantaged backgrounds and
with multiple difficulties for up to a year.
Provide an evidence-based multiagency/disciplinary family-centred approach to support and
enable families to identify what they want to change, build resilience, improve their lives
long-term and become active participants in their local communities.
Teams will be multi-disciplinary and where possible multi-agency with staff and resources
from children’s services, district council services, health and others.
Teams will be located in accessible premises in the areas that they serve.
Establish a single advice, information and referral point for families and professionals.
Establish a well understood model of working with children and families across all levels of
need in Essex. (‘Effective Support for children and families in Essex’)
Establish a single data system for shared family assessments and for recording the details of
families on the programme, work undertaken and outcomes used by all team members.
Establish a peer mentoring volunteer programme to offer longer term support to families by
local volunteers/peer mentors and the opportunity to become volunteers themselves when
they have been through the programme.
This approach will secure medium and long term cost savings to the public purse by reducing the
need of families for expensive reactive and specialist services, and by reducing duplication within the
system. The programme will be voluntary for the families concerned and the methods of working will
allow families to identify what changes they want to make to improve their lives and what solutions
they wish to achieve.
The family (key) worker will build a strong relationship with the family, based on respect and positive
regard. FS will design and deliver a new effective service model which by enabling families to break
free from inter-generational dependency will achieve wider system savings through increased
employment, good health, learning and attainment and community participation, and through
reduced crime, family/community conflict and social care involvement.
1.3 Background
Essex is a county with complex public sector structures that are not always co-terminus with its own
or partner organisational geographical boundaries. There are 2 neighbouring unitary authorities, 12
District /Borough Councils, two mental health foundation trusts, five Clinical Commissioning Groups
Final version
5
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
and in excess of 550 schools. This makes navigation of and access to services difficult for families and
professionals.
This complexity has led to difficulty in developing agreed and shared models across all partners of
delivering early intervention and targeted service to children and families in an effective way that
helps them make changes to their lives. This puts pressure on all services including health, social
care, housing, benefits, police, probation and education, and results in reactive and costly responses
that are driven by organisational and professional boundaries and often involve duplication of effort.
This situation demands change. It is exacerbated and made more urgent by the impacts of the
changing landscape of current education, benefits, police and health and social care reforms.
1.4 Scope
The Families
The Families Solutions (FS) programme will work with families whose needs cannot be met
sufficiently by universal services nor by services working together to meet families’ additional needs
(see ‘Effective support’ windscreen). The programme will not be for families requiring specialist
intervention for example where children are suffering significant harm or where family members
need tier 3 and 4 mental health services. FS is for those families whose needs are at level 3 of the
Essex Effective Support Windscreen (see page 17) who agree to participate to support them to make
lasting changes.
The FS criteria incorporate the DCLG ‘Troubled Families’ categories and also includes local priorities:









Families with no member in work*
Families with significant non-school attendance (for whatever reason)*
Families with members involved in crime or anti-social behaviour*
Families affected by domestic violence
Families living with drug and alcohol misuse
Families where children are in need and open to social care
Families where children exhibit significant behavioural difficulties
Families facing eviction or with significant rent arrears or neighbour disputes
Families with one or more member of the household with (tier 2) mental health needs
*Troubled families criteria
Agencies
 Essex County Council (ECC) will provide funding for a range of staff to each Family team such
as:
Team manager, practice supervisor, family support/early intervention workers, CAMHS tier 2
worker, youth worker, social worker, drug & alcohol worker, worker with education
background and business support
 District Councils are asked to provide or arrange with their housing provider a housing or
benefits worker to each team (shared where a team covers more than one district)
 Community health commissioners/providers are asked to provide a health visitor to each
team
 Mental Health providers/ Partnership Trusts are asked to provide an adult mental health
practitioner to each team
 All the above staff will be core family team members and should be as close to full-time as
possible, though job share arrangement can be considered
 Neighbourhood Police, Children’s centre providers, Job Centre plus, Adult Learning, Public
Health and Probation are asked to provide a consistent link/liaison worker to each team
Final version
6
Whole Essex Community Budgets

Business Case
Funding will be sought from partners to establish an Essex-wide family referral hub (linked to
an existing service), additional staff and two data/practice research posts to support the
teams
1.5 Cost / Benefit summary
Community Budgets provide the platform on which public bodies can collaborate in a significant way
to drive the cultural changes required to improve outcomes for families with multiple needs and
reduce their dependence on public services in the longer term. Other benefits aligned to the
programme include:
Financial Resources
The programme’s financial objective is to provide a sustainable model, ensuring that unnecessary
expenditure is avoided and that available resources are used most efficiently for the long-term
benefit of the community. Achieving sustainable change is likely to take time and it will be essential
to balance affordability and service provision appropriately across the county over the next 5 years
whilst reducing public spend and contributing to the financial savings set out in the respective
medium term financial strategy of partnering agencies.
The business case enables stakeholders, decision makers and those involved in the delivery of the
programme to ascertain that it:
 is supported by a robust case for change that is strategically focused;
 optimises value for money;
 is financially affordable;
 is achievable; and
 is sustainable
The total programme costs and benefits of establishing the FCN Programme are currently estimated
at £27.9m and £41.2m respectively, giving rise to an estimated net financial benefit of £13.3m
following a 5 year investment programme. Troubled Families – co-ordinator, attachment fee and
payment by results grant of £2.9m has been reflected in this business case.
After taking account of the combination of (1)associated Partnership opportunity costs (to be agreed
with partners) and (2)Troubled Families attachment fee, the total investment requirement reduces
by £16.0m resulting in a revised operating costs of £11.9m and the net operational programme
benefit increases to £29.3m. Long term steady state sustainable net cashable savings are estimated
to be circa £5.9m per annum.
This position (details outlined in section 3.3.3) includes prudent figures in respect of cost reductions
that can be achieved, should the targeted improvements be achieved and also assumptions around
the scale of longer term post intervention economic benefits that could be delivered by the
programme. If these figures improve, then greater cashable benefits for partner organisations will be
realised.
The partnership opportunity costs consist of direct employee costs for current posts in partner
organisations which will be seconded or deployed to the programme. Should the opportunity costs
be aligned as anticipated, the total upfront capital and revenue operational costs of £626k to cover
the financial years 2012-15 will be required.
The tables below identify the Actual Cost Benefit Analysis together with the contributions required
from each partner in respect of new investment. It should be noted that the Schools Forum have
agreed to redirect £757k of current base budget allocation for 2013/14 and 2014/15 to the new
Final version
7
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
Family Solutions service on the basis they receive regular reports on the effectiveness and efficiency
of the programme.
FCN - Actual Cost Benefit Analysis - Summary
Income / Expenditure Summary
Description
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
2020-21
2021-22
Total
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
Cashable Benefit
Revised Operating Investment
0
117
0
1,583
(2,627)
1,552
(7,636)
1,850
(8,723)
2,739
(8,792)
2,744
(8,696)
1,372
(4,479)
0
(254)
0
(33)
0
(41,240)
11,958
Programme New Investment & Net
Cashable Benefit
117
1,583
(1,074)
(5,786)
(5,984)
(6,048)
(7,324)
(4,479)
(254)
(33)
(29,282)
Total Opportunity Costs
(56)
(1,856)
(3,757)
(3,589)
(2,705)
(2,705)
(1,353)
0
0
0
(16,022)
Beneficiary
Year 0
2012/13
Year 1
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
2020-21
2021-22
Total
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
Total New Investment
Year 2
Total
Accrued
Programme
Benefit
117
1,583
1,552
1,850
2,739
2,744
1,372
-
-
-
11,958
-
All Partners
Essex County Council
Health
Police
Schools
The Probation Service
District, Borough and City Councils
117
-
244
189
757
4
390
223
202
786
4
339
157
258
990
5
439
291
375
1,437
7
629
238
382
1,465
8
651
95
194
744
4
334
-
-
-
Total
117
1,583
1,552
1,850
2,739
2,744
1,372
-
-
-
1,365
1,600
6,179
32
2,782
11,958
Partnership
Social Benefits
FS seeks to increase community cohesion and the wellbeing of individuals and families by working
actively with the most disadvantaged families in each community of Essex. This will enable all family
members to take advantage of education, health, leisure/sport, and employment opportunities, as
well as improve relationships between family members and decrease isolation within the local
community. This will result in improved educational achievement, health, employment and
emotional wellbeing and in a reduction in crime, anti-social behaviour, domestic violence, addiction
and in the high level reactive (failure) costs associated with these.
1.6 High Level Timetable
Below is the high level timetable with the key milestones of the projects.
Final version
8
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
1.7 Asks of Partner Organisations/Government
Partner Agencies
Partner agencies are asked to contribute staff and resources to ensure that the family teams are
genuinely multi-agency and the approach to each family is a holistic one based on a family (key)
worker who has the expertise to help the family address any issue be it health, housing, school,
employment or community related. We will seek commitment from partners to this model of
working and we will ask partners to allow workers in FS teams the authority to act on behalf of
families to address all of the social issues a family present.
Government

We ask Central Government to support this proposal to develop multi-agency family teams
to work in new ways with disadvantaged families.

We ask government to develop a payment by results mechanism and a national formula to
return a proportion of national public sector savings from FS (such as reduction in criminal
justice costs, welfare benefits and longer term NHS costs) to the local public sector economy
from April 2015 onwards.

We ask government to clarify how partner responsibilities for Early Help and common
assessment fits with Section 17 (10) of the Children Act 1989 so that it is clear that all
relevant partner agencies are responsible for meeting the needs of children and families
below the statutory social care threshold. The revised version of ‘Working Together’ provides
an opportunity to do this.

We do not at this stage have a specific data sharing ask of government. The Troubled
Families programme is working with DWP to find effective ways of sharing data and the FS
programme will build upon the solutions found. However, as the FS programme develops, we
may need to come back to government to undo data sharing blockages that impede effective
multi-agency working with families.
Final version
9
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
1.8 Recommendations
The partners involved in the preparation of this business case have agreed the content in principle
and confirmed their continued commitment to support, endorse and work together to deliver the
proposals set out in the business case, as well as to support the wider promotion of the case and its
proposition to further partners who will be affected and involved in the future.
In particular partners are asked to agree the following as part of the sign-off of the business case:
1. Essex County Council, District and Borough Councils, Mental Health Partnership trusts and
commissioners/providers of community health services, Neighbourhood Police, Children’s
centre providers, Job Centre plus, Adult Learning, Public Health and Probation are asked to
agree in principle the scope of the proposal.
2. Essex County Council, District and Borough Councils, Mental Health Partnership trusts and
commissioners/providers of community health services, Neighbourhood Police, Children’s
centre providers, Job Centre plus, Adult Learning, Public Health and Probation are asked to
commit to this family focused key worker model of working with families with complex needs
and to work collaboratively with the team in relation to any family they are concerned about
who is in the programme.
3. Essex County Council, District and Borough Councils, Mental Health Partnership trusts and
commissioners/providers of community health services, Neighbourhood Police, Children’s
centre providers, Job Centre plus, Adult Learning, Public Health and Probation are asked to
contribute staff and resources to ensure that the Family teams are genuinely multi-agency
and the approach to each family is a holistic one based on one family (key) worker coordinating the work and building a strong relationship with each family.
4. Essex County Council, District and Borough Councils, Mental Health Partnership trusts,
Police and Schools are asked in principle to provide financial support and or support in kind
from April 2013 onwards in order to implement the business case. The share of the funding
requirements from next financial year onwards will need to be agreed at a later stage.
5. Essex County Council, District and Borough Councils, Police and Community Health
Providers are asked to facilitate the finding of local premises for teams from the whole public
sector local estate.
6. We will ask central government to develop a payment by results mechanism and a national
formula to return a proportion of national public sector savings from FS (such as reduction in
criminal justice costs, welfare benefits and longer term NHS costs) to the local public sector
economy from April 2015 onwards.
7. We will ask Government (DfE) to clarify how partner responsibilities for Early Help and
common assessment fits with Section 17 (10) of the Children Act 1989 so that it is clear that
all relevant partner agencies are responsible for meeting the needs of children and families
below the statutory social care threshold.
Final version
10
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
2. Introduction
Partners across Essex have been working together since January 2011 to bring about sustained
system-change in the county’s public services and to recast their collective activity around the needs
of local communities and citizens.
As one of 16 Community budgets pilots announced in October 2010 spending review, Essex partners
have developed a shared vision is that every individual, family and community in Essex has the
opportunity to exercise choice and control over their lives, supported where necessary by agile and
responsive public services. To achieve this, we have begun the journey to remodel services through
the Whole Essex Community Budget (WECB) programme.
Final version
11
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
3. Strategic Case
3.1 Objective
The Whole Essex Community Budget - Family Solutions (FS)) programme will provide radically
different intensive family centred interventions to help families stay together, build resilience and be
more integrated within their local community, in such a way that there is a long term reduction in
the total cost of public services to that family and to the local community.
Disadvantaged families in Essex and nationally have been poorly served by traditional single agency
and single issue assessments of them, often not listening to them or offering the help or
understanding that they need. This way of working has led to reactive high cost interventions, often
driven by professional anxiety, that exacerbate rather than ameliorate family difficulties. Multiagency Family Teams, working to a clear intensive family intervention methodology (see Evidence
that works section below) and a strengths-based approach, represent a new and different model for
driving forward sustainable change.
The FS programme will deliver whole system change that:






Puts families at the centre, enables them to identify what they want to change and helps
them find sustainable solutions to improve their lives
Offers intensive relationship-based support to those families
Builds family resilience and breaks the cycle of intergenerational deprivation
Uses a strengths-based approach that supports access to universal services and prevents the
need for more formal and costly interventions
Is underpinned by an agreed ‘Effective Support’ conceptual model (see Appendix 2 and 3) so
that all agencies understand levels of need and deliver services to children and families at the
right level when they are needed
Builds upon community resources and resilience by extending the opportunities for
volunteering and peer support
We will use the FS programme as the fulcrum for transformational reduction in demand for
acute/specialist and more expensive services, not just in individuals and families, but across whole
systems. Through this approach, we can reduce dependency, unemployment, crime and drug and
alcohol misuse and increase skills, health, educational attainment and wellbeing.
3.2 ‘As Is’ situation
Essex has embraced each evolutionary shift in working with children and families in the last 15 years:
Sure Start Children’s Centres; multi-agency working; Teams around the School, Child and Community
(TASCC); CAF; Family Intervention Projects; and so on. Whilst each change has brought benefits,
improvements have been more piecemeal than we would have wished. Each has been laid on top of
the existing arrangements, often not addressing underlying problems in the way things work. On
reflection there was not sufficient understanding and engagement from partner agencies in these
initiatives.
This has prevented families in difficulty accessing help when they need and receiving a co-ordinated
multi-disciplinary response to their needs. This puts pressure on all services including health, social
care, police, probation and education and results in reactive and costly responses that are driven by
organisational and professional boundaries, often with duplication of effort. This complexity is
systemic within Essex, with service delivery evolving from add-on “improvements” rather than
Final version
12
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
fundamental system change and so historic structures, processes, organisational culture and
behaviours have become barriers to effective help for disadvantaged families.
3.3 ‘As Is’ Description
Guidance: The Essex Threshold of Need Guidance (January 2011) was intended to support partners
understand which services to access when needed. However, it lacks clarity, particularly at tiers two
or three where children and families need more support. While schools and others work hard to
meet children’s additional needs, when these require a multi-agency and co-ordinated response,
there is no understanding and agreement about how that should be provided and who should
organise it. The needs of disadvantaged families are multi-faceted, but the current guidance is not
clear about how partner agencies working together will ensure that families get the co-ordinated
help they need.
Tools: The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) was first introduced in Essex in 2007. There is still
confusion about whether CAF is a referral tool or an assessment tool, and it is not often used as an
active inter-agency plan for helping a family in need. In general agencies have not adopted CAF
within their own organisation, using it only when they need to access ECC services. This means that
disadvantaged families experience multiple assessments that are not joined up and do not provide a
holistic or co-ordinated planned response. (see partners views of CAF appendix 1).
Processes: The Multi-Agency Allocation Groups (MAAGs) were introduced in Essex in 2009. They are
funded by ECC and professionals meet on a regular basis to discuss referrals, to problem solve and to
allocate resource to meet the needs of the child/young person referred. The process does not focus
on the family in the round, but on individual children. Whilst MAAGs have had some impact, the
process has not brought about the genuine integrated delivery desired, in the main because many
agencies are not willing to engage especially in acting as Lead Professional. The numbers of referrals
to MAAGs remain low, representing less than 3% of the contacts made to children’s social care. In
addition, the changing financial and service delivery landscape has had an impact within MAAGs
reducing the resources of partners available. This has led to MAAGs being less effective and
therefore children and families not receiving the coordinated help they need.
Access Routes to services: There are various access routes to services to and between partner
agencies. The Initial Response Team (IRT) is the one front door into Children’s Social Care, providing
information, advice and screening. In North and South Essex there are Child and Mental Adolescent
Health single gateways providing similar functions. Health, Housing, Police and others have their own
different access systems designed for their own functions. MAAGs provide a referral point in each
part of the County. However in 2011/12 MAAGs received 1,771 referrals of which 1,025 (58%) were
appropriate requests for multi-agency support. This contrasts with 65,000 contacts to IRT in the same
period of which 20% - 13000 - went on to become social care assessments. There is no single
information, advice and screening point for professionals to refer families who need planned and coordinated multi-disciplinary help.
Support: The role of the Lead Professional was introduced in Essex at the same time as the CAF. The
original intention for the role of the Lead Professional was that of a person best suited to the family
to take on the role of co-ordinating the support that would help them. However, most organisations
have not empowered and supported their staff to take on of the role of the Lead Professional. It
often falls to the referring agency to take on that role (sometimes reluctantly) and they are often not
in a position to provide sustained multi-disciplinary help that the family need. As a result families
rarely receive the co-ordinated support that they need.
In 2012 there has been a “Review of Assessment, Referral and Access Routes to Services” which has
involved widespread consultation across Essex with agencies, schools and professional, and with
Final version
13
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
parents, children and young people. The findings of the consultation are in Appendix 1 and raised
similar concerns about the current system.
EssexFamily: The EssexFamily programme was established in 2011 as phase one of Community
Budgets. Funding was given by ECC to develop innovative prototypes and new ways of working with
families in District Council areas. These EssexFamily prototypes have developed slowly but learning
from them has informed and will continue to inform the FCN programme. The five prototypes are:
Harlow – A co-located, multi-disciplinary Family Support Co-ordination Service has been developed,
consisting of Key Workers who broker and deliver a one stop shop early intervention, integrated,
holistic, assertive outreach provision to identified families with multiple needs. Enabling families to
take control is a major feature of the approach, and 33 families ‘bubbling under the threshold’ have
been worked with to date.
Colchester – ‘Participle’ have been engaged to lead a multi-agency team of secondees building on
their work in Swindon – the ‘LIFE’ programme. The team will work with 20 families for up to two
years.
Tendring – Much work has been completed on data sharing issues and a voluntary sector led
approach to a virtual multi-disciplinary team of key workers is being developed to engage intensively
with 20 families in two wards in Harwich and Clacton.
Castle Point/ Rochford - have been prototyping a family-led, whole family assessment process, which
could be utilised by practitioners from a wide range of agencies to establish trust with families and
capture the family’s story (both their capabilities and their needs) as the springboard to agreeing a
joint action plan. They are developing an approach to a ‘family budget’.
Basildon - are developing the idea of a ‘neighbourhood agreement’, an approach designed to bring
community and public services together, harnessing the assets of both to improve outcomes for
families.
Volunteers: Essex has a history of recognising the value of volunteers and the role they have to play
in an integrated children and family system, through its own service delivery such as youth work or
notably, through the Youth Offending Service (YOS). The YOS in Essex currently has over 70 trained
members of the local community who take the lead in challenging young offenders to take
responsibility for their actions and change their behavior whilst acting as mentors, as well as those
who act as ‘appropriate adults’ to young people aged under 17 who are arrested. Both youth
mentors and appropriate adult volunteers receive specific training and supervision. Essex also has a
strong voluntary and community sector that provides a range of support for families, including that
provided by volunteers. ECC commissions services that provide volunteers to work alongside
families, however these volunteers are usually not linked into the other professionals working with
the same families.
The Review of Assessment, Referral and Access Routes to Services findings have informed us that
children, young people and their families want to be:
 Treated with dignity and not judged or stigmatised
 Listened to and their opinions respected
 Given choices and involved in making decisions
Whatever operational and delivery models are implemented in the future, there is a clear demand
for a more integrated, flexible and family centred approach with clear access routes to support and
agreed ways of working together as agencies, professionals and families.
Final version
14
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
3.4 ‘As Is’ – Financial
Analysing how public money is currently spent by the various agencies in providing assessment,
support and intervention for families is complex, as this is currently a somewhat fragmented
landscape. Services within the scope of the programme are delivered by a mix of in-house and
commissioned models and under existing arrangements, the key services supporting FCN were
delivered in 2011/12 at a gross expenditure of £224.0m with staffing levels associated within the
services, in excess of 1,423 full-time equivalents. The 2012/13 and forecasted 2013/14 gross
expenditure is circa £212.2m and £201.9m respectively.
Key Delivery Partners - High Level As Is Snapshot - Financial Summary
2011-12
Expenditure Category
Indicative
FCN Gross
Expenditure
Fte
Indicative
Interventions
/ Individuals
Supported
2012-13
2013-14
Indicative
FCN Gross
Expenditure
Forecasted
FCN Gross
Expenditure
£000
57,528
245
39,100
£000
57,694
£000
57,225
Education and Employment
38,731
483
66,540
39,341
39,341
Community and Family Resilience
39,802
183
51,884
40,263
39,155
108
1,184
1,184
Health & Development
Housing
Protection
Total Partners
1,184
-
86,950
512
53,508
73,687
64,965
224,195
1,423
211,140
212,169
201,870
Primary Care Trust (PCT)
18,000
-
7,128
18,000
18,000
Schools
15,062
296
1,916
17,058
17,058
Department of Work & Pensions (DWP)
18,655
-
-
18,655
18,655
Police
16,769
-
35,590
16,769
16,769
1,707
-
1,274
-
-
10,085
-
3,593
10,085
10,085
Probation
Ministry of Justice (MOJ)
District Council's (DC)
1,859
-
25,248
1,859
1,859
Essex County Council
142,060
1,127
136,391
129,745
119,445
224,195
1,423
211,140
212,169
201,870
Total
The decreasing expenditure trend is in the main attributed to reductions in public funding and other innovative
approaches / programmes which are reducing the number of Families in Essex where children are in need or in
care and open to social care.
The services and cost associated in determining the mean cost of a FCN covered a scale of functions
across the Essex ‘Effective Support Model’ and illustrated the complexity and disproportionate cost
of current services for FCN. This presents significant opportunities for end-to-end service re-design
and associated benefit realisation.
The average cost of supporting FCN varies locally and nationally, partially because the definition of
FCN is very variable and costs are not directly observable or easy to estimate.


2007 - Social Exclusion Task Force (SETF) - £250,000 - £330,000 per annum, based on costing
up interventions across services; and
2011 - DCLG - 120,000 Troubled Families, £75,000 per annum - spent on protecting the
children in these families and responding to the crime and anti-social behaviour.
Final version
15
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
Essex County Council undertook a detailed cost analysis to calculate what portion of the expenditure
incurred in the table above can be apportioned to an average FCN. Analysing a range of anonymous
case studies, unit costs interventions (estimated on a service by service basis) and professional
expertise the mean cost of an Essex FCN is currently estimated at £78,000 per family per annum (for
Essex Family 18 months ago a figure of £139,000 per family was assumed but this was based on a
very small sample of families with high level 4 needs).
The refreshed analysis indicated that the average costs of families with complex needs on the cupse
of specialist provision to be £24,000, however following the incorporation of a range of specialist
provisions e.g. Custody, Child in Care etc this could increase to as much as £122,000. We consider
that due to the number of variables in complexity of need and range of costs outlined above, the
average cost of £78,000 does not provide a conclusive position that can be used in the application of
actual cashable savings at an operational level and therefore a unit costs, outcomes based alternative
approach has been used within this programme.
A number of transformational projects are currently underway which will have an overlap with the
services in scope for this project, namely All Age Commissioning, Strategic Commissioning Hub,
Multi-Systemic Therapy and other Community Budgets programmes such as Health and Well Being
integrated Commissioning and Community Safety. The figure above has been determined after taking
account of known costs and proportional activity. As these projects develop the position will need to
be revised to ensure that ‘double counting’ of these costs and/or a future benefits does not occur.
A financial baseline is provided at section 3.3.3. This demonstrates how the headline figures above
have been revised; initial information captured, enhanced where necessary by further service input,
and a more granular analysis of financial and activity data formulated to provide a cluster-wide
baseline unit costs for the programme.
3.5 ‘To Be’ proposal
3.5.1. The key elements of the New Delivery Model









Use of pan-public sector shared ‘front-door’ for individual and family referrals – developing a
single ‘Family Support’ gateway
Focussed use and re-design of family well-being model - Effective support for children and
families in Essex - and family-led Shared Family Assessment (SFA - formerly CAF) as an
agreed way of working for al partner agencies
Clear expectations on all universal services to work together to meet children and families
additional needs
Family teams in each area under a single management structure, located in an accessible
community setting, will work with families who meet three or more criteria and have needs
that require a multi-disciplinary response at Level 3 – ‘Intensive’, delivering an integrated,
holistic, assertive outreach provision to identified families
Teams members will act as key workers/lead professionals and work intensively with
families, building a strong relationship, for up to a year
Families will enter the FS programme on a voluntary basis
The key worker will establish a relationship of trust with the family and stay as the central
point of support for the family throughout the period of intervention
Team members will be family workers, but will also provide their specific professionals
expertise to assist all team members, including support to access help from their own agency
and discipline.
There will be two tiers of intervention – short-term problem solving (up to three months) and
long-term intensive (up to a year)
Final version
16
Whole Essex Community Budgets







Business Case
Families will be in the programme for up to a year by which time they should be able to take
full control and responsibility for themselves both in their everyday family functioning in the
home and in the wider community
The key worker and family relationship involves a degree of challenge, but it is for the family
to identify and agree what they want to change and the plan to achieve this.
There will be a volunteering/peer mentoring programme with families offered a matched
volunteer to stay with them when they exit the programme.
As the family feels more capable/confident, they are encouraged and trained to take on roles
as volunteers/peer mentors for other families either directly or through community groups
Appropriate incentives will be developed to support and encourage families to achieve
targets which have been negotiated and agreed with the key worker.
The methodologies used will be solution-focused, systemic and evidence based.
A rigorous framework to evaluate impact and to learn and modify over time, based on strong
customer feedback, including setting a baseline at the start to measure progress and impact.
Effective Support for Children and Families in Essex
ECC and its partners are developing a framework and guidance called ‘Effective Support for Children
and Families in Essex’ (appendix 2) which clarifies levels of need and responsibilities for responding
to needs at each level. This will ensure that services provide effective support to help families make
changes and find solutions at an early stage when needs first become apparent, thus avoiding the
need for costly long term or specialist interventions.
In this guidance we have identified four levels of need: Universal; Additional; Intensive and
Specialist as indicated on the ‘Effective Support Windscreen’ below.
Essex Effective Support Windscreen
Universal services such as schools and primary health care, children’s centres and youth work,
remain responsible for organising and co-ordinating services for children and families with Level 2
additional needs.
Final version
17
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
The FCN programme is aimed at children and families whose needs are at level 3 – requiring
intensive and multi-disciplinary co-ordinated intervention.
Sustained help for disadvantaged families
There are disadvantaged families with complex needs in every part of Essex, every town and in most
villages, but we know that there are concentrations of such families in particular areas especially
Harlow, Braintree, Basildon, Colchester and Tendring. There is sometimes a history of
intergenerational deprivation and families are likely to have experienced difficulties over a long
period of time.
Criteria for the FS programme
Our definition of families with complex needs incorporates the ‘troubled families’ categories but also
includes some pressing local priorities:









Families with no member in work
Families with significant non-school attendance (for whatever reason)
Families with members involved in crime or anti-social behaviour
Families affected by domestic violence
Families living with drug and alcohol misuse
Families where children are in need and open to social care
Families where children exhibit significant behavioural difficulties
Families facing eviction or with significant rent arrears or neighbour disputes
Families with one or more member of the household with (tier 2) mental health needs
Families will usually meet two or more criteria to enter the programme, but this will be flexible. All
families worked with will have a child or children aged under 18. All families will engage in the
programme on a voluntary basis by consent.
We will establish a single information, advice and referral point for professionals and families
themselves to direct families to the right sources of support and to be a point of entry to those who
meet the programme criteria.
Partnership Structure and Arrangements
Final version
18
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
The development and implementation of the FS programme will be the responsibility of Essex County
Council but a partnership advisory board will be established to provide strategic advice and guidance
to the programme. The partnership advisory board will comprise senior officers from ECC, district
councils, Health, Police and Voluntary Sector (one of each). The Essex Health and Wellbeing board
will be the strategic accountable body for the FCN programme.
The FS programme will be hosted by Essex County Council and line management of the programme
will be provided by the Schools, Children and Families Directorate. The programme will remain a
multi-agency service with a distinct identity operating across Essex and delivering services to families
with complex needs.
In year 1 the service will be delivered by 8 multi-disciplinary family teams. The FS programme will
have staff compliment of 120 staff and aspirations to deploy a cohort of 90 volunteers by the end of
the first year.
Accountability
The family teams will be accountable within the ECC SCF management structure and to the families
they work with. The strategic accountability will lie with the Health and Well Being board.
Family Teams
The establishment of family teams requires a radical shift by all partners and professionals concerned
and this will involve new professional identities being built and a new family centred culture adopted
by all agencies and a shared commitment to counting ‘success’ differently.
Building on the learning from previous initiatives, from the Essex Family prototypes and the Troubled
Families programme, the proposal is to establish by October 2013 eight multi-disciplinary family
teams covering the whole of Essex. Teams will be based in accessible and family friendly locations in
areas of deprivation. The teams are likely to be located in Harlow, Braintree, Colchester, Clacton,
Basildon, Chelmsford, Epping/Brentwood and Castle Point/Rochford.
Family teams will be multi-disciplinary and consist of a mix of professionals from the following roles:












Team Manager (from any relevant qualified professional background)
Practice Supervisor (social work qualified)
2 family support/early intervention workers
CAMHS tier 2 worker
Youth worker
Social worker
Drug & alcohol worker
Worker with education background
Health Visitor
District Council worker e.g. housing officer or benefits advisor
Adult Mental Health practitioner
Business support
In addition to the above professional roles a Programme Manager will be appointed and have overall
responsibility for the organisation and delivery of the programme.
Final version
19
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
Each team will have a consistent liaison link to Neighbourhood Policing; Job Centre Plus, Children’s
Centre Providers, Adult and Community Learning, Public Health and Probation. Each team is
expected to work with 180 families a year and families will be on the programme for up to a year.
There will be two tiers of entry to the programme – short-term problem-solving and longer term
intensive. Families can switch between tiers. The key worker will link families to community
resources and tailored support from any appropriate service, including access to evidence based
parenting programmes.
It is important that, beside the one-to-one casework, the Family teams have ready access to a range
of community and public health resources that can directly benefit families, such as exercise
programmes, smoking cessation, road safety awareness and local community volunteering
opportunities.
The skills set within the family team will need to reflect the anticipated level of family complexity the
model assumes. A training programme for all team members based on a standard operating
evidence based model will be in place before teams start. Team members will need to be able to
adopt a highly persistent and resilient approach to engaging with families. Team members will be key
workers and will work with up to ten families at any one time. Team members will be allocated
families based on their knowledge, skills and experience and the family’s specific needs. Team
members will use their own specialist/professional knowledge to the team offering advice,
consultation and negotiating access to services.
Initially the teams will be line managed by Essex County Council, Schools, Children and Families
directorate within a strong management structure. Once the model has been fully established and
refined from 2014 we will explore alternative delivery mechanisms.
The programme will establish a single Essex wide information advice and referral point for entry
into the FS programme. This will also replace the current CAF point and will be a reception point for
shared family assessments and a source of information about resources to all professionals and the
public. The single referral point will act as the gateway to the FS programme allowing self-referral as
well as agency or professional referral. The single referral point might be connected to other existing
referral points such as Essex Customer Service Centre.
Once families have entered the programme it is our expectation that partner agencies will deal with
most issues concerning the families through liaison with the key worker and working collaboratively
with the family and the team to achieve the optimum solution. We will also learn from families about
broad public sector service effectiveness and gaps and feed this back to all relevant public agencies.
ICT is a crucial part of the supporting infrastructure for the partnership and a key enabler of business
change and improvement. We will agree and set up a single data system to record information about
families entering the programme, work undertaken and outcomes achieved. This will be used by all
team members. The data system will fit with existing ECC systems and will also be the system for
recording shared family assessments. Data sharing protocols will be developed to allow multi-agency
use of the system. Families will need to give consent to sharing information about them within the
team upon entry to the programme.
This approach will secure medium and long term cost savings to the public purse by reducing the
need of families for expensive reactive and specialist services.
Volunteers
In conjunction with the community and voluntary sector, we will establish a peer mentoring
volunteer programme to support families. Support will be offered to families by local
Final version
20
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
volunteers/peer mentors during the programme and will continue when they leave the programme.
Families will have the opportunity to become volunteers themselves when they have successfully
been through the programme. To support the programme we anticipate the need to recruit and train
up to 250 volunteers in years 1 and 2 (from January 2014) years to work with families.
Volunteers will be recruited, trained and supported to work with a family and build a strong
supportive relationship with them. It is recognised that the relationships between and respective
roles of the professional members of the family teams and the volunteers will need to be delineated
and differentiated so that they are clear to the families, the staff and the volunteers.
Outcomes
The FS programme will seek to bring about change in the families in the programme to deliver the
following achievement measures:
Health
• Reduction in substance misuse
• Improvement in mental health and well-being
Education and employment
• Increase in school attendance and attainment
• Reduction in young people not in education, employment or training
• Increase take up of adult learning opportunities
• Reduction in unemployment (TF)
Community and Family Resilience
• Reduce the number of domestic abuse incidences
• Increased family independence and resilience**
• Reduction in neighbour disputes
• Reduction in crime by family members (TF)
• Participation in volunteering / community activities**
Housing
• Increased stability of tenancies
• Reduced homelessness in families and family members
• Reduced use of emergency housing placements
• Reduction of debt
Protection
• Reduction in number of Children in Care
• Reduction in number of Children in Need
• Reduction in crime against family members
**A number of the measures above have important social benefits but have been excluded from the financial model as they
are non-cashable.
3.5.2. Evidence that the approach works
This approach is strongly rooted in the evidence that intensive interventions taking a systemic
approach with the wholly family are more effective that traditional single agency/ single issue
interventions. Intensive interventions are those that deliver high frequency key worker led face to
face sessions with families. A mutually agreed plan of action is put in place with clear actions with
anticipated goals articulated in language that all can understand. These goals are reviewed very
regularly with the emphasis very much on family based solutions rather than externalised support
Final version
21
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
(such as taking young people out of the family home for leisure sessions) although these can be
part of the agreed change programme.
Increasingly, evidence is suggesting that there are common themes associated with successful
family based interventions. In a comprehensive literature review undertaken in Australia by the
NSW Department of Community Services (2009) “Effective strategies and interventions for
adolescents in a child protection context” Schimed and Tully looked at internationally recognised
interventions such as Functional Family Therapy, Multi Systemic Therapy and Multi-Dimensional
Family Therapy and found that these models were consistently assessed as better at reducing key
factors such as conduct disorders and other behavioural problems of teenagers. The underlying
principles for all forms of intensive family therapy were found to be broadly the same.
These were:
 Enhancing positive family relationships by improving communications and conflict resolution
 Tackling problems within the family
 Increasing the level of support provided from parent to child.
 Shifting the focus of the problem from something from within an individual to something in
the family system.
The evaluation also found that the following areas should be considered in the development,
implementation and evaluation of interventions:


Develop interventions that shift the focus from individual young people and their families to
incorporate community and neighbourhood approaches
Utilise a strengths based approach. Strengths based approaches provide a way of identifying
and fostering resilience in family members, focusing on what is important and not what is
urgent.
Strengths based perspectives developed as a way to value children and young people and their
parents as “experts in their own lives and experience, able to find solutions to life challenges” –
Trotter (cited in the referenced study above) notes “people learn more and progress better if
workers resist focusing on pathology instead focusing on what clients do well and on their
achievements. It is an approach based on a belief that even people with the most entrenched
problems and adversities have inner resources that can help them develop.”
Where there has been significant investment in worker skills and on-going training, manageable case
loads and a positive perception of organisational leadership outcomes are generally good. Effective
multi agency working is identified as a critical success factor in sustainable outcomes.
In March 2011, C4EO published its detailed findings of what works in three strands of work relating
to Families, Parents and Carers work:



Improving children's outcomes by supporting parental physical and mental health
Improving children’s outcomes by supporting couple relationships, reducing family conflict
and addressing domestic violence
The impact of parenting and family support strategies on children and young people’s
outcomes.
Across this comprehensive review they identified three key themes:

“Multi-agency, flexible and coordinated services, with an underpinning ‘think family’ ethos,
are most effective in improving outcomes. This includes staff in adults’ services being able to
Final version
22
Whole Essex Community Budgets


Business Case
identify children’s needs, and staff in children’s services being able to recognise adults’
needs. Such services are viewed positively by families and professionals alike.
Early intervention prevents problems becoming entrenched; the practical help, advice and
emotional support which many parents value can often be given without referral to specialist
services. Children and young people also prefer an informal approach.
In order to access services, parents must feel reassured that they are not being judged or
stigmatised, and be helped to overcome their fears of having their children removed.
The Local Authority Research Consortium (LARC4) study into the added value of the Common
Assessment Framework in supporting families with additional needs found that the costs of working
and intervening in the manner envisaged by FCN are usually repaid many times over by the
avoidance of greater costs later in the life of a child or family.
Other studies that evidence the effectiveness in social and financial terms of intensive family support
include ‘Intensive Family Support’ – Action for Children 2011 and ‘Evaluation of Intensive Family
Support Projects in Scotland’ – The Scottish Government 2009. ‘Health Related Work in Family
Intervention Projects’ Institute of Education 2012, identifies the health benefits to families engaged
in FIPs including the added value of seconded health professionals in such multi-disciplinary teams.
3.5.3. To Be – Financial
To ensure sustainability and avoid hidden subsides the investment model has been undertaken on a
full cost basis to identify the full cost of delivering the services, including the use of the facilities that
may belong to partnering organisation.
The analysis undertaken for this business case indicates that investment totalling £150k capital and
£27.9m revenue will be required over a 5 year period. The investment will facilitate the following:
 Initial capital and revenue set up cost (Incl ICT)
 Facilities and associated running costs
 Family Teams / Staffing establishment
 Volunteer programme, recruitment, training & support
 Family support fund
The business case calculates that the potential accrued financial benefits over a 7 year period (taken
account of intervention savings which accrue for a period up to 28 months post intervention) across
partnering agencies is £41.2m. This results in a net operational programme benefit of £13.2m
It is anticipated that contributions equating to £1.035m will be available from partnering agencies for
2013/14 and £2.1m 2014/15 (cash in kind contribution/ opportunity costs aligned to secondments
etc). It is proposed that partners create a earmarked fund to facilitate short term staffing difficulties
in existing teams (backfill), during early workforce transition and establishing of benefits. The net
result of the above is a forecasted net operational programme benefit of £29.2m prior to
discounting.
We will continue to work with partners to evidence the financial and non-financial benefits over the
coming months and realign / pool additional resources accordingly to support the residual
investment requirement for the programme. The high level summary is outlined below and key
financial assumptions underpinning the costs and benefits are as follows:
Final version
23
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
2020-21
2021-22
Total
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
0
173
173
150
3,290
3,440
0
5,310
5,310
0
5,439
5,439
0
5,444
5,444
0
5,449
5,449
0
2,725
2,725
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27,830
27,980
0
0
(2,627)
(7,636)
(8,723)
(8,792)
(8,696)
(4,479)
(254)
(33)
(41,240)
173
3,440
2,683
(2,197)
(3,279)
(3,343)
(5,971)
(4,479)
(254)
(33)
(13,260)
ECC
Schools
Health
District /Borough /City
Central overheads 5%
(48)
0
0
0
(8)
(467)
(31)
(193)
(344)
(157)
(953)
(93)
(386)
(688)
(253)
(1,247)
(125)
(386)
(688)
(259)
(1,247)
(125)
(386)
(688)
(259)
(1,247)
(125)
(386)
(688)
(259)
(624)
(62)
(193)
(344)
(130)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(5,834)
(560)
(1,928)
(3,442)
(1,325)
Government Funding - Troubled Families
(attachment fee, co-ordinator & PBR)
Total Opportunity Costs
0
(56)
(664)
(1,856)
(1,384)
(3,757)
(884)
(3,589)
0
(2,705)
0
(2,705)
0
(1,353)
0
0
0
0
0
0
(16,022)
117
1,583
(1,074)
(5,786)
(5,984)
(6,048)
(7,324)
(4,479)
(254)
(33)
(29,282)
Income & Expenditure Summary
Description
Total Capital Investment Requirement
(Excl Financing)
Total Revenue Investment Requirement
Total Programme Investment
Total Cashable Benefits
Total Programme Net Cashable
Benefit
Total Revise Programme Net
Operational Cost / Benefit
150
(2,932)
Key Financial Assumptions







Capital Investment - one Off ICT Software enhancements (licences & maintenance costs
incorporated in revenue investment);
Revenue Investment – based on 8 teams 2013-14, includes one off implementation and
operational costs; the model would need to be refreshed should the need for additional
teams in areas of high need be identified;
Base Unit Costs - adjusted 2011/12 service outturn
Families – total number of families in the programme (including Troubled Families cohort)
commencing engagement / interventions with 720 families (2013-14), increasing to 1,440
(2015-16) per annum
Cashable Benefit - accrued benefit reflecting; service unit costs, families in the programme,
level of programme success, average length of intervention and optimism bias;
Opportunity Costs and Backfill – contribution of partnering agencies of primarily staff and
resources identified as existing and recommended short term earmarked backfill provision;
and
Troubled Families - co-ordinator and attachment fee, based on the agreed number of
families within the Troubled Families cohort. Troubled Families payment by results are
included in this business case.
3.5.4. Affordability
Careful consideration has been given to how the investment will enable the programme to deliver the
cultural and transformational change required. In particular, we are aware of the need to ensure that
the preferred delivery solution remains affordable on a sustainable and on-going basis.
All funding assumptions used have been reviewed and in principle agreed by partners, including
programme phasing. The intention is to manage the development of the programme within the
capital and revenue earmarked funding available for investment and the longer term benefits of 4%
of current gross budget at this conceptual stage remains indicative and subject to revision as the
project develops.
Final version
24
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
3.6 Policy Context
At a national level there have been several initiatives over the last eight years to develop more
holistic multi-disciplinary ways of working with children and families. The Children Act 2004, Section
10, gives a duty of partners to co-operate to promote the welfare of children and allows for the
pooling of budgets (see appendix 3).
The Children’s Act 2004 led to the Common Assessment Framework (CAF) and other initiatives such
as ‘Think Family’ and the family intervention projects. The DCLG Troubled Families programme is the
latest national attempt to find new ways of responding to disadvantaged families. There are two
major drivers: improved family and community wellbeing and the reduction of high level reactive
costs to the public sector purse. These issues are as relevant across Essex as they are nationally.
The Munro review of child protection (DfE 2011) reinforced the importance of all partners’
responsibilities for delivering an ‘Early Help’ offer to children and families before problems escalate
to require social care intervention. The Local Safeguarding Children Board has a responsibility to hold
partners to account in their delivery of Early Help. A new version of Working Together is currently
being consulted on by the DfE. This includes the responsibilities of all partners to contribute to a
‘Common and Shared Assessment’.
Public service partners in Essex have signed up to the Community Budget programme as a long term
plan to develop new and innovative ways of working that are more streamlined, cross organisational
boundaries, and will deliver significant public sector savings over time. The Families with Complex
Needs programme at strategic level will:




consider our relationships with children and families differently
challenge the way the we operate across organisational boundaries
challenge the purpose of organisations as they are currently configured and
consider new organisational constructs
3.7 Strategic Fit
Our objective will support the overarching strategic priorities in Essex, including the Public Health
Outcomes Framework, the Essex Children and Young People’s Outcomes Framework and Essex
Health and Wellbeing priorities agreed to date:



Every child has the best start in life
Individuals and communities make better lifestyle choices and take greater responsibility and
control of their health and wellbeing
Individuals and families within the communities of Essex that are least likely to take advantage of
services enjoy improved health and wellbeing
The key outcomes outlined above also fit with specific Essex County Council priorities:





To enable every individual to achieve their ambitions by supporting a world-class education and
skills offer in the county
To improve public health and wellbeing
To protect and safeguard vulnerable people
To give people a greater say and a greater role in building safer and stronger communities
Final version
25
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
3.8 Dependencies, Risks, Constraints and Asks
3.8.1. Dependencies
Strategic / operational leadership: Strategic leadership and commitment from partners and strong
effective operational leadership will be required to implement the strategy and deliver the
programme
Local community delivery options: It will be necessary to work with our partners to identify suitable
premises in local areas, close to where families live, across the collective Essex Public sector estate to
accommodate family teams in line with the phased implementation plan.
Operational intelligence: A robust data sharing and information capturing system will be required
to record family details and work undertaken , evaluate the outcomes and generate timely, relevant
information to support operational decisions. It is proposed that this would only be accessed by
workers within the family team, with a possible interface to other agency systems to enable key
worker contact to be identified. The data sharing system will also be used to record the outcomes
from the programme and to evaluate its success, feeding into the calculations of benefits and
savings.
Key project financial assumptions: The programme seeks to build on existing service delivery models
to transform the family experience of public services and put the families at the heart of service
delivery. The actual associated costs of delivering the current range of services to the identified
families and potential cashable benefits needs to be understood and agreed across the cluster of
partners. Whilst initial estimates have been incorporated in this Business Case, the data set will need
to be updated as more detail emerges from the programme.
Liability assessment: A high level assessment of the Council’s risks and liabilities has been
undertaken in developing this business case, however as the programme develops a more
comprehensive assessment will need to be undertaken across all partners to determine any
additional HR, property or residual contract issues.
Interdependencies: There are a number of interdependencies between this programme and others
Whole Essex Community Budgets. There is a link to the Single Estate Strategy, Community Safety Domestic Abuse and Strengthening Communities workstreams. Interdependencies have been
managed at project board level and actions identified to ensure that interdependencies will not
adversely impact upon the likelihood of achieving the objectives and benefits of the programme.
Legal: Review and research of the current statutory position for Essex County Council and other
stakeholders is currently in progress to identify the following:





Statutory obligations affected by the proposals.
Examination of the current legal and statutory provisions which may assist or prevent the
proposals
Any resulting asks of government to assist and facilitate the proposals
Stakeholder governance arrangements required to be able to take decisions on the chosen
model and implement the proposals
Funding and Investment options
The Localism Act and the general power of competence afforded by the Act is the starting point for
the legal investigations and review.
Final version
26
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
3.8.2. Risk Management
To properly manage the risks associated with this project the Council has developed a Project Risk
Register which identifies all the foreseeable partnering and operational risks and potential
consequences. This includes a strategy for mitigating those risks and a named risk owner. The Project
Risk Register is a “live” document and the owner of the register is responsible for updating it as the
project evolves.
Risk: Partners and other stakeholders are not aligned with the FCN aims, or do not respond as
anticipated to the proposal under consideration.
Mitigation Strategy: We will continue to engage with potential partners and provide further
opportunity for input into the project as it evolves. The Programme Office will ensure clear
communication of the project’s strategic objectives which will enable stakeholders to understand the
Council’s aims and their role within the project. Substantial stakeholder engagement is planned for
October and November 2012.
Risk: A poorly designed or structured programme fails to hit its objectives due to one or more of the
following: a lack of a clear strategic direction, inappropriate monitoring arrangements or weak or
inappropriate operational arrangements.
Mitigation Strategy: The programme has a clear implementation plan that will be effectively
communicated with partners. Qualified and competent professionals as well as legal resource will
work to develop a memorandum of understanding and robust and appropriate partnering agreement
to strengthen the long term solution.
Risk: The programme does not deliver the cultural and behavioural change needed in the workforce
in order that public bodies can work together to successfully deliver the objectives.
Mitigation Strategy: Ensure all partners understand the need to change, how the processes work and
what type of benefits each process can bring to their own individual services and the local
community as a whole. There will be a comprehensive multi-agency training programme for all team
members. The impact of the service changes will be assessed over time, providing evidence to all
partners of the delivered milestones as we work towards the wider benefits which will take 2 or 3
years to fully materialise.
Risks: The programme does not deliver the behavioural changes in families needed to reduce
dependency, deliver sustainable resilience and reduce public spending.
Mitigation Strategy: Understanding and working with the families to identify and remove individuallevel barriers to change, ensuring that we have sufficient, skilled, trained staff and volunteers to
deliver a range of interventions at individual and local level
Risk: Central government changes, such as future government savings targets or funding reductions,
or changes to legislation adversely affect the programme’s ability to deliver its benefits.
Mitigation Strategy: The programme professional lead and assigned legal resource will monitor
legislative changes on an on-going basis. The Council’s Finance Professional Services will do the same
for savings targets and funding reductions. Changes will be notified to the Partnership board and
assessed for their impact. Significant impacts will be reported to the Partnership Board in the first
instance. The Board will decide whether or not to recommend a change to the programme costs /
benefit profile or that the programme be stopped.
Final version
27
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
These risks will be assessed and managed in accordance with the Council’s project management
methodology and the Project team and Programme Board will continue to provide appropriate
escalation routes.
3.8.3. Constraints
The main constraints at this stage of the project are outlined below. It should be noted that, in most
instances, there are actions which can mitigate any risk of these factors having a negative impact on
the success of the project.
Operational: An inability to attract and retain sufficient high-calibre employees could become a
barrier to the continued success and growth of the programme
Cost: The public sector is working under increasing pressure to reduce budgets. The programme will
therefore have to work within a constrained budget.
Time: Medium Term Financial Strategies set out the financial benefits which partners are seeking to
make. This project will contribute to those savings and will therefore need to work within the
timescales required to deliver these financial benefits.
Authority: To proceed at any given stage rests with senior management and, as appropriate,
Cabinet/Board Members across partnering agencies. The programme will have to operate within the
officer decision making process, as well as the democratic process. This may constrain the ability to
progress at the desired speed.
3.9 Asks of Partner Organisations/ Government
Partners
4. Partners are asked to commit to this family focused key worker model of working with
families with complex needs and to work collaboratively with the team in relation to any
family they are concerned about who is in the programme.
5. Partner agencies – District Councils, Mental Health Partnership Trusts, Essex County Council,
commissioners/providers of community health services are asked to contribute staff and
resources to ensure that the Family teams are genuinely multi-agency and the approach to
each family is a holistic one based on one family (key) worker co-ordinating the work and
building a strong relationship with each family.
6. Partners are asked to facilitate the finding of local premises for teams from the whole public
sector local estate.
7. Partners are asked to collaborate in the development of one data sharing and recording
system used by all agencies within a team.
Government
1. Central Government are asked to support this proposal to develop multi-agency family teams
to work in new ways with disadvantaged families.
2. Central government is asked to build on the Troubled Families work and develop a payment
by results mechanism and a national formula to return a proportion of national public sector
savings from FCN (such as reduction in criminal justice costs, welfare benefits and longer
term NHS costs) to the local public sector economy from April 2015 onwards.
Families with multiple needs are a long-standing, intergenerational problem. We are
convinced that our family-based approach, with evidence-based interventions comprising
Final version
28
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
effectively sequenced and integrated public services, tailored to specific families’ needs will
make significant inroads to the flow of the most challenging families. Along with the other
Community Budget areas, we want central government to help us put our work with these
families on a more sustainable basis, and help this Family Solutions and the related Troubled
Families programme have a real and long-lasting legacy.
We support the national toolkit being developed by LGA and DCLG to help LAs pool resources
and investment, but in the longer term, government will want to take steps to help LAs and
partners develop the social finance market so it can be applied to the more complicated
issues that these families face. Cabinet Office could help develop the market through a
brokering function between investors and local authorities, backed by standard agreement
tools. However, central government also benefits from the savings that come from turning
these families lives around. Therefore, if there is good evidence of the effectiveness of the
Outcomes Fund approach during the relatively small-scale pilot phase (around £20m), we
believe this approach should be rolled out quickly through the next Spending Review period,
funded by a range of Government departments that currently control spending decisions
from Whitehall.
3. We ask Government - DfE to clarify how partner responsibilities for Early Help and common
assessment fits with Section 17 (10) of the Children Act 1989 so that it is clear that all
relevant partner agencies are responsible for meeting the needs of children and families
below the statutory social care threshold. The revised version of ‘Working Together’ provides
an opportunity to do this.
There is an apparent contradiction between Section 17 (10) of the Children Act 1989 which
places the responsibility for support to children in need with social services authorities and
Section 10 of the Children Act 2004 which makes all partners who work with children and
their families responsible for co-operating to improve the welfare of children (see appendix
4). This apparent contradiction is at the heart of the limited success in developing effective
Early Help partnerships around the country and the relatively low use and impact nationally
and in Essex of the common assessment (CAF).
The lack of clear guidance from Government in relation to this has proved a barrier to getting
agencies to engage in cross-agency working to deliver joined up services for families with
complex needs. Given Government's clear steer through both Community Budgets and
Troubled Families that complex problems need a collaborative approach, we consider that
Government could valuably provide clarity in the forthcoming version of ‘Working Together’
to clarify the shared partnership responsibilities for meeting the needs of all children.
We do not at this stage have a specific data sharing ask of government. The Troubled
Families programme is working with DWP to find effective ways of sharing data and the FS
programme will build upon the solutions found. However, as the FS programme develops, we
may need to come back to government to undo data sharing blockages that impede effective
multi-agency working with families.
3.9.1. Staff and Culture Change
In creating the family teams the programme proposes to employ approximately 120 staff from which
circa 50% will originate from the Family Solutions (Troubled Families) Teams, requiring planned
transition from Family Solutions posts to FCN posts. It is anticipated that the new teams will be
formulated based on a ratio of 80:20 qualified/non-qualified.
Final version
29
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
The model is based on family workers irrespective of professional background. All team members will
become family workers, working intensively on a key worker basis with up to 10 families at one time,
whilst bringing their specialist professional knowledge to the team as a whole. Family Team members
will be subject to interview and selection process and will receive a substantial staff training
programme to prepare them for this new way of working.
Current service resource will reduce in recognition of the benefits to be delivered by this programme.
Agreed consultation processes will be followed with employees and trade unions. Partner agencies
may choose to second staff into the Family teams, but because these are new public sector roles
requiring a different attitude and approach to families, all staff will need to go through an interview
and selection process, whether redeployed, new recruits or secondees.
3.9.2. Changes in Governance / political accountability
The FS programme will be strategically accountable to the Essex Health and Wellbeing Board. All
partners’ contributions and involvement in FS programme will remain subject to their own political
and executive governance arrangements.
3.10 Impact on infrastructure
3.10.1. Services
As the new Family Teams will carry out interventions with families, albeit in a new way, this will
reduce the workloads commensurately in individual service areas, so in most cases the overall net
impact on existing services should be minimal. However the new model will challenge traditional
culture and professional boundaries. The detail of impact in each service area will need to be worked
through in coming months.
3.10.2. Buildings
Local community buildings as bases for the family teams will be sought from partners in areas where
most families in need live.
3.11 Procurement and contracts
3.11.1. Procurement
The implementation plan is based upon the delivery of an in house model utilising the expertise of
ECC SCF managers and adopts a phased approach to provide a cost effective medium term provision
with clear qualitative aspects such as seamless transition and deliverability to known standards. In
removing the transparent barriers between partnering services across the county and providing the
short term investment required, we will be able to use available resources in very different more
efficient ways and reduce costs. We will also be able to test out the effectiveness of the model and
adapt it from learning through an iterative process, to refine and hone it.
There is however a balance to be struck between relatively short to medium term phased
implementation plan, current financial constraints and longer term costs and benefits. We recognise
that this is a long-term challenging issue which requires a long-term sustainable solution and some
functions within the Model create opportunities to explore possible alternative.
Consideration could be given to areas that:
Final version
30
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
• have proven outsourcing potential, through existing experience or the experience of comparable
organisations;
• are clearly definable in terms of service specification; and
• provide clear benefits in terms of revenue savings and risk management
We will develop robust evidenced based outcomes matrix to facilitate an effective payment by
results / profit sharing mechanism and continue to explore a range of structures and investment
models that will deliver financing mechanisms over the long term and deliver the optimum VfM
solution for all partners across Essex
Services to be procured
We will seek to procure one or more volunteer programmes to start in January 2014 involving those
with national and local expertise to deliver such intensive volunteering schemes. It may be that
different local procurement solutions are needed for different localities in Essex. A stand-alone
procurement strategy is to be devised for the programme, in tandem with the broader programme
documents that will set out key requirements, strategic considerations, and the likely sequencing of
activities. The costs associated with the procurement are incorporated within the investment model.
The delivery of a new programme and partnership structure may require the acquisition of services
in programme and project management; design; transition; and operational service delivery. These
services may be provided by existing public sector resources or though procurement from
commercial specialists
3.11.2. Contracts
Under current arrangements, partners are separate legal entities, have separate assets and liabilities
together with the ability to enter into contracts independently. Further work is required to ascertain
the details of the existing contractual environment, including consideration of the following:


Property - leases/licences – We will seek premises in four new locations to begin in
September 2013. The four Troubled Families teams will have already established four bases
for themselves and FS will continue to utilise these. We will work with our public sector
partners to make best use of the public sector estate in identifying premises. Property costs
are in the budget.
Staffing – It is not envisaged that there will be any TUPE arrangements. Staff from partner
agencies outside ECC are likely to be seconded to the family teams on their current terms
and conditions.
4. Cost / Investment / Funding
4.1 Overview
The following table shows the modelled Investment and accrued benefit aligned to the programme
and for up to 1,440 families per year. It is anticipated that the programme will achieve a positive
cash-flow after 2 full years of operation, break even in 2015-16 with net present value benefits
ranging of £10.2m and £24.6m over the life of the programme dependant on the treatment of
opportunity costs.
Within the Actual Cost Benefit Analysis the average annual net benefit when all teams are operating
to capacity is £5.9m (which represents 4% of the indicative 2013/14 gross budget (£201.9m). It must
however be noted that only a cautious allowance of 5% (total circa £2.0m pa) has been built into the
benefit programme for on-going resilience of the families, overall long term reduction in families
Final version
31
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
with complex needs, sustainable reduction in future years unit costs the wider impact on outcomes
and benefits being realised in areas external to the partnership. This indicates that greater long term
opportunities are available should this programme be progressed long term service delivery
approach.
The Total and Actual Cost benefit analysis is outlined in the table below:
FCN - Total Cost Benefit Analysis - Summary (Including Opportunity Costs)
Income & Expenditure Summary
Description
Investment:
Capital Investment Requirement (Excl
Financing)
Revenue Costs:
Implementation Costs (incl volunteer
procurement)
Implementation Costs (Prog Manager
& Startup)
Partnership Board
Direct Employee Costs (Hub)
Direct Employee Costs Teams
Volunteers
Premises Costs
Operational running costs
ICT incl (capital financing)
Central overheads 5%
Total Revenue Investment Requirement
Total Capital & Revenue Investment
Total Cashable Benefits
Total Programme Net cashable
Benefits
Discount Rate
Net Present Value (NPV)
Year Principal Returned
2012-13
Year 0
2013-14
Year 1
2014-15
Year 2
2015-16
Year 3
2016-17
Year 4
2017-18
Year 5
2018-19
Year 6
2019-20
Year 7
2020-21
Year 8
2021-22
Year 9
Total
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
0
150
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
150
117
400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
517
48
138
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
186
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
255
1,968
90
112
130
40
0
340
3,936
240
224
267
50
0
340
3,936
360
224
270
50
0
340
3,936
365
224
270
50
0
340
3,936
370
224
270
50
0
170
1,968
185
112
135
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,785
19,680
1,610
1,120
1,342
265
8.3
173
157
3,290
253
5,310
259
5,439
259
5,444
259
5,449
130
2,725
0
0
0
1,325
27,830
173
3,440
5,310
5,439
5,444
5,449
2,725
0
0
0
0
0
(2,627)
(7,636)
(8,723)
(8,792)
(8,696)
(4,479)
(254)
(33)
173
3,440
2,683
(2,197)
(3,279)
(3,343)
(5,971)
(4,479)
(254)
(33)
(13,260)
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
2020-21
2021-22
Total
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
3.50%
(10,248)
2018-19
FCN - Actual Cost Benefit Analysis - Summary (Excluding Opportunity Costs)
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16 2016-17
Income / Expenditure Summary
Description
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
Revised schedule
Total Capital & Revenue Investment
27,980
0
(41,240)
0
173
3,440
5,310
5,439
5,444
5,449
2,725
0
0
0
27,980
(48)
0
0
0
(8)
(467)
(31)
(193)
(344)
(157)
(953)
(93)
(386)
(688)
(253)
(1,247)
(125)
(386)
(688)
(259)
(1,247)
(125)
(386)
(688)
(259)
(1,247)
(125)
(386)
(688)
(259)
(624)
(62)
(193)
(344)
(130)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(5,834)
(560)
(1,928)
(3,442)
(1,325)
0
(664)
(1,384)
(884)
0
0
0
0
0
0
(2,932)
117
1,583
1,552
1,850
2,739
2,744
1,372
0
0
0
11,958
0
0
(2,627)
(7,636)
(8,723)
(8,792)
(8,696)
(4,479)
(254)
(33)
(41,240)
117
1,583
(1,074)
(5,786)
(5,984)
(6,048)
(7,324)
(4,479)
(254)
(33)
(29,282)
Less:
ECC
Schools
Health
District/Borough/City
Central overheads 5%
Government Funding - Troubled Families
(attachment fee, co-ordinator & PBR)
Revised Operating Investment
Cashable Benefit
Programme Net Cashable Benefit
Discount Rate 3.50%
Net Present Value (NPV) (24,577)
Year Principal Returned 2015-16
Assumptions contained in the model are as follows:


A fixed profiled number of families are worked with each year
Family teams will work with each family for up to a 12 month period
Final version
32
Whole Essex Community Budgets


Business Case
No benefit is recognised in the 12 months of intervention
The overall success rate of 40% remains consistent throughout the 5 year programme
4.2 As Is Model
The programme seeks to provide a revised model reconfiguring a range of service that will genuinely
put the family at the heart of service delivery. In order to determine the appropriate base line and
unit costs we have sought to identify the services which operate within the intensive level of need or
those which are likely to interrelate specifically with the families within the FS programme. For each
service the project established the current service gross expenditure, associated functions
undertaken, staffing and other activity levels, and apportionment for FS.
Whilst initial estimates have been incorporated in this Business Case, based on Internal and external
financial and performance data and service manager expertise, the data set will evolve as more detail
emerges from partnering organisations.
Establishing service unit cost

In order to facilitate the calculation of the costs of the services, the As Is model has used
2011/12 outturn data and performance levels to determine appropriate unit costs

Reduced service unit costs by 10% (5% 2012/13 and 2013/14 respectively) of service costs
has also been deducted from the indicative unit costs in order to factor in efficiencies which
may have already been achieved / planned across partnering agencies post 2011/12

2012/13 indicative gross budgets are based on the latest budget (thus may vary significantly
from actual 2011/12 outturn) apportioned to reflect the level of budget supporting FCN

Known efficiencies / (budget savings) and growth planned for 2013/14 and the medium term
have been taken into account in determining the 2013/14 available resource and for
simplicity apportioned to reflect FCN support

2013/14 indicative gross expenditure budget
No secondary recharge assumptions have been added to the gross expenditure figures. These
calculations provide revised 2013/14 unit costs for each service, and this has then been used as a
baseline against which further opportunities for cost reductions and improved income generation
have been made.
Details are attached at appendix 5.
The confidence level in the unit costs data is approx. 85% with details regarding some aspects of
partners existing unit costs at a local level still evolving. This confidence level is reflected in the
optimism bias applied within the Outcome Matrix, both of which will be adjusted as the model
develops further.
4.3 To Be Model
The programme shows a positive net present value and indicates that 3 years of investment totalling
£626k will be needed for the partnership to become sustainable.
Investment
The investment model has been undertaken on a full cost basis to identify the full cost of delivering
the programme. The total costs over the first five years are estimated to be £28.0m (detailed in
Final version
33
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
appendix 5). These include those one off costs directly associated with implementing the
programme, managing the transitional arrangements and the on-going running costs.
Key assumptions:






Capital ICT – earmarked capital fund to enable the operational system enhancements to be
undertaken (full costs will be know when a more detailed specification is developed)
Implementation Costs - contains the necessary provision to commission the relevant
professional support (internal and / or external) to the partnership; in addition a 2% (£15k)
risk contingency is incorporated
Direct employee costs equate to £21.46m over the life of the programme and include
opportunity costs aligned to all partners of £16.2m; the opportunity cost consist of current
posts in partner organisations which will be seconded or deployed to the programme.
Volunteers – the investment model assumes an average of 86 volunteers after the first 12
months of the programme, incrementally increasing to 250 by September 2015. The
earmarked fund will provide, co-ordination recruitment and retention
Central overheads -5% central overheads have been assumed within the model (generally
this would be circa be 8% however accommodation costs are accounted for within the
premises line in the model)
Programme cessation costs - whilst the defined period for this programme is 5 years; it is
designed to be a sustainable delivery model and as such no redundancy costs or programme
closure / winding down costs are incorporated within the investment appraisal.
Funding
As outlined above the objective of the Total Costs Benefit Analysis is to provide an indication of the
sustainability of the project after accounting for the true costs and benefits. In view of this,
opportunity and one off grant funding has been excluded.
The grant is however highly probable and as thus been included in the Actual Costs Benefit Analysis.
Further detail of the Troubled Families attachment grant outlined below:

Troubled Families - Essex County Council has committed to working with the 1,850 families,
of these 1,542 are eligible for funding under the Troubled Families programme. The financial
framework for the programme allows for 80%, 60% and 40% of the payment to be payable in
year 1, 2 & 3 respectively as an attachment fee. The opportunity funding incorporated in the
analysis assumes that a portion of year 2 and total year 3 fees of £2.9m are aligned to this
programme.
Investment of £1.7m will be required to support the programme for the initial 3 years of operation.
Partnership investment and profit sharing arrangements will be scoped in detail as the programme
develops; however for illustrative purposes only were this required investment to be apportioned on
the basis of the indicative partner’s high level programme benefits the position summarised below
would apply:
Final version
34
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
Partnership - Indicative Investment Profile
2012-13
2013-14
Schools
Essex County Council
District, Borough and City Councils
Police
Health
The Probation Service
Total
2014-15
£0
£117,000
£0
£0
£0
£0
£756,514
£243,884
£389,853
£189,091
£0
£3,766
£0
£0
£0
£0
£0
£0
£117,000
£1,583,109
£0
Total
£756,514
£360,884
£389,853
£189,091
£0
£3,766
£1,700,109
Other options are available and will all be explored in depth with associated partners as outlined
within the implementation plan and an equitable position agreed.
4.4 Investment appraisal (Outcome Matrix)
The FCN programme is complex in nature in that it proposes 9 entry criteria and 14 financial outcome
criteria, with the potential for multiple presentation issues and opportunity for success. Attached at
appendix 6 is the FCN outcome matrix which utilises both local and national data to captures the
anticipated programme inputs and outcomes, which can be aligned to national and local priorities
with an assigned value.
Due to the complexity of the model it has been developed in the following 4 tranches:




Ascertain a relevant unit costs to be aligned to each of the services within scope
Determined the family composition, entry level issues on which families are likely to present
and predicted programme success factor
National and Local outcome measures; and data source on which the effectiveness of the
intervention can be measured
Calculate the average period of intervention and cashable benefits which could be attributed
per Cohort
The model is based on a single cohort of 180 families with outcome and benefits extrapolated to
reflect the total programme and indicate where programme investment will generate benefits or
alternatively the need for greater investment. The matrix remains a working document which is
anticipated to evolve with the programme and provide the necessary tool to measure performance
and evaluate the financial effectiveness of the programme.
4.5 Savings
The indicative savings for this programme based on the output from the Total Cost Benefit Analysis
and Actual Cost Benefit Analysis is £13.2m and £29.3m respectively. These figures reduce to £10.2m
and £24.5m respectively following the application of 3.5 % discount factor to ascertain the Net
Present Value of the cost / benefit).
From an annual budgeting perspective, the focus will be on the actual Cost Benefit Analysis. Accrued
benefits would peak at £5.9m in 2016-17 financial year, when the teams are fully established,
operating to capacity and a steady state is achieved. This represents 4% of the indicative 2013/14
budget for families with complex needs.
For the purposes of this appraisal, it has been assumed that where savings are identified these will
not be determined as cost avoidance but cashable. Where capacity issues are evident in key
operational areas and service reductions via staff numbers cannot be achieved it is consider that
efficiencies can be generated via improved business process or overall staffing mix
Final version
35
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
Overlaps are evident in a number of project work streams and community budget which present a
risk to the programme; however we are confident that the local level service / intervention approach
adopted within this model should ensure that savings are only attributed to budget areas aligned to
the activity. Whilst we acknowledge the availability of wider correlating benefits e.g. Education
attainment / unemployment the benefits within the model is only aligned to one specific area of
outcome. We will continue to monitor this area at both Programme Board and FCN Programme level.
Engagement will continue with potential partners and provide further opportunity for input into the
programme to validate assumptions as it evolves.
Sensitivity Analysis
Whilst optimism bias has been explicitly allowed for within the estimates, it is also prudent to test
the impact of varying assumptions re efficiencies and costs. To further ascertain whether the
programme can be delivered successfully in a sustainable manner and how possible variations in the
key assumptions will affect the financial outcome of the programme. The following scenarios have
been modelled and compared to the total cost benefit analysis (including opportunity costs):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Unit costs variations + / - 5%
Number of families +/- 20
Success factor + / - 5%
Intervention + / - 3 months
Total Investment + / - 5%
Combination of 1, 2, 3 & 5 ( + / - )
As can be seen in appendix 7 the most sensitive of the key assumptions is the intervention period.
When the intervention period reduces on average by 3 months the programme demonstrates a
negative NPV of £16.183m. The analysis indicates that current assumptions can only vary by up to 1.6
months to retain a neutral NPV.
The combined impact (sensitivity 6, worst case scenario of decreased unit costs, reduced number of
families within the cohort, decrease success and increased investment) also indicates a negative NPV
of £155k and does not return a positive cash-flow until 2016 – 17.
All other key sensitivities retained a positive position in each individual scenario. The overall results
indicate that the average period of current intervention must be a key focus as the model develops.
Optimism Bias
Optimism bias is the tendency within project / programme development for the costs to be
underestimated and benefits overstated in the early stages of development, An ability to adjust for
optimism bias ranging between 0 – 40 % has been applied within the model. For the purposes of this
appraisal, a substantial optimism bias adjustment of 40% has been allowed. This is initially set at the
highest level taking a more pessimistic approach allowing for the level of bias to reduce and be
adjusted as the programme progresses and later cohorts when the evidence is fully established.
We consider this to be sufficiently prudent and as a result no further risk contingency has been
allowed for in the programme.
Final version
36
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
4.6 Benefits profile
Evaluation of benefits
The benefits realisation matrix is attached as Appendix 8 and sets out the outcomes and timings for
the financial and non-financial benefits outlined in this business case.
The total programme cashable benefit is £41.2m. Benefit categorisation and profile are detailed
within appendix 8.
The timing of the delivery of benefits will be dependent on two main factors:
1) Implementing structural change; the scale and speed of service transition, availability of
investment, management of risk, and business continuity.
2) accrued benefit – benefits are realised one year in arrears and can be applied across financial
years where the average intervention period exceeds 12 months. Benefits aligned to the ongoing resilience / sustainability factor are accounted for in the year following benefit realisation.
This benefit profile provides the ability to evidence the effectiveness of the intervention and apply a
outcomes based approach. As a result the timeframe of 5 to 7 years is characterised by recurring
benefits and the cumulative effect of each cohort. The profile by partner following full
implementation of 12 teams is anticipated to be as follows:
Year 2
Beneficiary
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Total
Accrued
Programme
Benefit
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
2020-21
2021-22
Total
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
External
Department for Work and Pensions
Ministry of Justice
798,441
100,556
2,235,583
402,746
2,505,093
564,470
2,515,076
498,546
2,515,076
498,546
1,317,421
228,409
59,883
32,160
14,338
11,946,571
2,339,771
432,112
23,540
152,997
627,743
3,047
488,334
1,369,814
65,911
428,381
1,757,641
8,532
1,367,305
1,588,292
73,856
480,025
1,969,533
9,561
1,532,140
1,697,042
74,151
481,938
1,977,382
9,599
1,538,245
1,601,042
74,151
481,938
1,977,382
9,599
1,538,245
795,445
38,841
252,443
1,035,771
5,028
805,747
64,894
1,765
11,475
47,081
229
36,625
18,920
-
7,567,561
352,215
2,289,196
9,392,534
45,594
7,306,641
2,626,771
7,635,913
8,722,969
8,791,977
8,695,977
4,479,106
254,111
33,258
41,240,083
Partnership
Essex County Council
Health
Police
Schools
The Probation Service
District, Borough and City Councils
Total Benefits
The profile presents a reasonable view of the likely timing of efficiency, and can be adjusted during
the detailed implementation phase should a key assumption underpinning the model e.g. the
number of family teams, change.
5. Implementation Plan
This high level implementation plan is intended to be an iterative document setting out the proposed
approach to establishing and successfully delivering the Families with Complex Needs programme.
5.1 Phased delivery/change plan
1. Although not part of the Family Solutions business case the DCLG Troubled Families
programme in Essex (called Family Solutions) will begin operation in October 2012 with four
teams covering the whole county (not Southend and Thurrock).
2. Learning from the five Essex Family prototypes and the development of Family Solutions in
Essex will inform the development of Families with Complex Needs programme over the next
12 months.
Final version
37
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
3. We will examine the options for a data base which can be used for all families entering the
programme and which can be accessed by team members from whichever agency. This data
base will also be used for monitoring and recording shared family assessments by all
agencies/partners working with children and families in Essex. The intention is to explore IT
data and recording systems and identify solutions for procurement/development by March
2013. The agreed system will be in place by October 2013 with Data Sharing Agreements
between all partners in relation to how the shared family assessment/family teams data
system is accessed and by whom.
4. A new family-centred shared family assessment format and process will be established and
agreed by partners by March 2013, alongside a new Family Well Being Model, called
‘Effective Support for Children and Families in Essex’, which will be ratified by the Essex
Safeguarding Children Board and by all relevant partner agencies.
5. The detailed specification for the volunteer/mentoring programme will be completed by
March 2013, in order to complete a commissioning process with independent, community
and voluntary sector by December 2013.
6. By March 2013 the role descriptions and any necessary job evaluations will be completed for
new posts within the Family Teams. This will be done taking into account the learning and
effectiveness of posts within the Family Solutions one year programme. Between April and
July 2013, a workforce plan, incorporating the Family Solutions teams and the posts which
will make up the new Family Teams will be developed. This plan will be used to inform the
process of establishing the eight Family Teams by October 2013.
7. Recruitment to the four new Family Team Manager posts will occur earlier, and be complete
by July 2013, so that these managers can develop the systems and processes and further
recruitment for their teams. This recruitment will include the phasing of the four Family
Solutions team managers into the new FCN programme.
8. The new teams will form in September 2013 for a programme of workforce development and
training prior to becoming operational in October 2013.
9. A programme of workforce planning and training for all Family Team members, building on
the learning from Essex Family and Family Solutions, will be developed by June 2013 with a
clear plan for team members training in September 2013.
10. A new shared family assessment/family referral point offering advice, information and
guidance to all those working with children at levels 2 and 3 of the ‘Effective support’
windscreen, and open to families themselves to self-refer or seek advice, will be established
by July 2013. This will be linked to wider systems referral and assessment functions to
ensure economies of scale. Between July and October 2013 this service will begin to identify
and contact families who might be interested in entering the FS programme from October.
11. By September 2013 the ways of evaluating outcomes for families will have been established
in detail including base line evaluation at the point of entry into the programme, mid-point
review, exit from the programme review and 6 months post programme evaluation.
12. 4 teams have already been established under the Troubled Families programme.
Identification of suitable premises for remaining for teams in local areas by June 2013.
Lease/occupancy agreements and funding arrangements between partners for premises and
Final version
38
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
infrastructure in place by July 2013. It is anticipated that premises will come from the
collective Essex Public Sector Estate.
5.2 Detailed resource plan
Essex has substantial experience of delivering programmes of work and is committed to ensuring the
FCN programme has the capacity and capability to deliver the challenging objectives.
To provide strategic direction to the programme we already have in place a sponsors group, led by
Dave Hill, Director of Children’s Services, with key stakeholder representation from district council
representative, Community Foundation, DWP and Health Commissioning. This ensures countywide
support for the programme and enables the programme to be taken forward swiftly.
Operational implementation of the FS programme will require the investment of resources. Specific
considerations are the creation of a project team led by a service manager and including the use of
Legal, HR, Finance and range of Partner officers. The estimated resource requirement to October
2013 (operational) is £401k. Details are outlined in the tables below; the associated costs have been
incorporated within the Cost Benefit Analysis and will need to be updated at appropriate points
during the process.
People resource
Ref
Skills needed
Assum ed Grade
Skills level
1
Operational
Senior Manager
Interim
Expert
2
Programme
Office
Band 6
Intermediate
3
HR
Interim
Expert
3
ICT
Interim
Expert
4
Finance
Band 7
Intermediate
5
Communication
Band 6
Intermediate
6
Legal
Band 7hourly
rates
Intermediate
7
Property
Band 7
Intermediate
8
Other (please
specify)
Activity
Operational Lead for the project and
control the development and
implementation of the programme
Monitor the plan and support
worksteams in their planning and
reporting
People implications incl. managing
change protocol
ICT System Design & Data sharing
agreements
Financial due diligence, analysis,
monitoring and reporting
Publicity, communication &
consultation
Developing partnership agreements
and reviewing contractual
arrangements
Property negotiations and
arrangements
Chargeable
Productive
Days
New
Increm ental
ECC Cost
£
01/10/2013
190.0
104,500
01/11/2012
01/10/2013
190.0
26,315
1.0
01/11/2012
30/06/2013
226.0
113,000
340
0.5
01/11/2012
30/06/2013
137.0
23,290
336
0.3
01/11/2012
01/10/2013
190.0
19,152
277
0.3
01/11/2012
01/10/2013
190.0
15,789
560
0.3
01/11/2012
01/10/2013
190.0
31,920
336
0.5
01/11/2012
01/10/2013
190.0
31,920
Day Rate
Fte
Start date
End date
550
1.0
01/11/2012
277
0.5
500
Total
Final version
365,886
39
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
Physical Resource & Start Up
Date (s)
needed
Estim ated
Cost
£
Ref
Resource needed
Activity
9
Meeting room with computer
connected to projector
Workforce development
Mth to Mth
50,000
10
Meeting room with computer
connected to projector
Consultative / Informative
Workshop
Mth to Mth
5,000
11
General Supplies
Mth to Mth
10,000
Mth to Mth
15,000
12
Publicity, marketing materials
etc
Programme Contingency
Total
80,000
Further resources will be deployed as necessary on an ad hoc basis from other service areas, for
example Essex property facilities, procurement and subject matter experts to provide additional
support at key stages in the project.
5.3 Stakeholder Engagement Plan
The key communications and engagement issues are:



Progress and development relies on the support and participation of many organisations
with varying objectives, cultures, and ways of working
The complexity of the task and the link to the Troubled Families programme of work requires
good communications to support common understanding and collaboration
Although many agree intuitively with the vision of Family teams from multi agencies,
implementation is likely to encounter obstacles and differences
The FS programme requires effective engagement that promotes multi-agency conversations and
helps to secure shared objectives. As far as possible, our communications and engagement plan
should include ways of taking all audiences with the programme, so that they are able to follow its
findings and implications as they emerge. The following points highlight the work that needs to take
place in the next few months.
1. August to September 2012 - Discussion with strategic partners directly asked to contribute to the
FS programme in terms of staffing and resources
2. Between September and November 2012 consultation with all partners working with children
and families about the findings of the review of assessment, referral and routes into services,
including the new ‘Effective support for children and families in Essex’ model and the new shared
family assessment format. This will include discussion about the FCN programme and where the
FCN programme fits into the ‘Effective support for children and families’ model.
3. In April – June 2013, there will further widespread partner engagement in relation to the
developed systems and processes in relation to the shared family assessment (SFA), the family
teams and the advice, information and referral point for SFA and FCN.
Final version
40
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
5.4 Benefits Realisation plan and method
Performance monitoring, evaluation of benefits and profit sharing
The business case sets out the success measures and indicative financial and non-financial benefits to
the wider Essex community. A performance framework will be developed to evaluate and monitor
the benefits. The baseline position of families entering the service will be captured to ensure that
progress against the success measures can be accurately evidenced and reported through the agreed
performance framework.
The benefits directly attributable to the establishment of the Family Teams will be monitored against
the benefits matrix and cashable savings will be apportioned in line with the partnership profit
sharing arrangements.
5.5 Critical Success Factors
The aims of the FS programme are to provide a strong relationship-based support to disadvantaged
families in need in such a way that they are enabled to face the difficulties they identify and make
changes in their lives. By making these changes, family members will be in a better position to access
and make full use of a wide range of universal services, such as school, further education, adult
learning, training, employment opportunities and appropriate access to primary health, housing and
other Public Services. As a result, the use of high cost, high end reactive services such as child
protection, criminal justice system, housing eviction, tier 3 health provision will be substantially
reduced with appropriate savings to the public purse.
1. The model is based on the family worker who, whatever their professional background, acts
as a key worker for the family, co-ordinating all the support, information and advice they
require and helping them access appropriate services quickly. The family worker will also
provide their professional expertise to the team as a whole to help families to access services
in their service area.
2. It is critical for the success of the model that team members selected have the right skills and
attitudes and preparation. They must be allowed by their employers and professional bodies
to operate in this generic family worker role whilst retaining their professional expertise.
Arrangements will be in place for clinical/professional supervision, but each family worker
will be managed and accountable to the family team manager.
3. The transition of services from Essex Family and Troubled Families will be critical to the
success of the establishment of the eight family teams in October 2013. The learning from
these will inform the development and training programme.
4. Disadvantaged families must be willing and have sufficient incentive to engage with the
programme. Building on evidence from research, we will learn what works best. We need to
ensure that the Family Team offer is radically different so that families who have often been
poorly served, or have felt antagonistic towards the existing way of doing things are going to
enthusiastically embrace the new approach.
5. Partner agencies and professionals must sign up to a shared understanding of effective
support for children and families in Essex, including agreement about the four levels of need
and how family needs and services map against the four levels. This will have to be ratified
by partners and the Essex Safeguarding Children Board.
Final version
41
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
6. There needs to be an agreed and procured data system for both shared family assessments
and for the work undertaken within family teams. One pre requisite of entering into the FS
programme for families will be consent to information sharing within the bounds of the
family teams. Agencies need to agree that their staff within the family teams are able to
record their work in the established new data system.
7. The establishment of a single central point for information, advice, referral and screening for
both shared family assessments and for the families with complex needs programme needs
to be in place prior to the start of Family Teams so that there are clear and understood
pathways and processes for professionals and families.
8. An agreed methodology for working with families based upon strong relationships and
evidence from research needs to applied consistently in all Family Teams within Essex.
9. An agreed format and process to measure success, outcomes and benefits, beginning with
baseline information upon entry to the programme need to be in place at the outset, used by
all families and team members.
6. Recommendations
1. That this business case to establish multi-agency family teams to work in new ways with
disadvantaged families across Essex be agreed
2. That the costs and estimated benefits accruing over a seven year period are accepted as a
basis for financial modelling and agreeing partner investment and benefits shares
3. That the stakeholder engagement and implementation plan as set out in section 5 above is
agreed as a basis of undertaking detailed implementation work over the next year
Final version
42
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
7. Appendices
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Outcome of consultation on assessment, referrals and routes into services
Effective Support for Children and Families
Essex Effective Support Windscreen
The Children Act 1989 and The Children Act 2004
As Is Model
Outcome Matrix and Data Source (2 schedules)
Sensitivity Analysis
Benefits realisation matrix
Memorandum of Understanding
Programme Risk Register
Programme Implementation Plan
Equality Impact Assessment
Appendix 1 - Outcomes of consultation on assessment, referrals and routes into services.
Final report on
consultation with CYP parents profs Aug 2012.pdf
Appendix 2 - Effective Support for Children and Families.
Effective Support in
Essex 20120907.doc
Appendix 3 - Essex Effective Support Windscreen.
Essex windscreen v0 3 20120907.pdf
Appendix 4 - The Children Act 1989 and the Children Act 2004
The Children
Act_1989_2004.docx
Appendix 5 - As-is Model.
Appendix 6 - Outcome Matrix and Data Source (2 schedules)
Appendix 7 - Sensitivity Analysis
11th Feb
Sensitivity.xls
Appendix 8 - Benefits realisation matrix
Final version
43
Whole Essex Community Budgets
Business Case
Appendix 9 - Legal Advice Note
20 9 12 Legal advice
- families with complex needs (final).doc
Appendix 10 - Programme Risk Register.
FCN risks.pdf
Appendix 11 - Programme Implementation Plan
FCN Implementation
plan.mpp
Appendix 12 - Equality Impact Assessment
EqIA WECB-FCN
Sect 1 20120920 v0.2.doc
Final version
44