In December 2010 the Prime Minister set out that he wanted troubled families’ lives to be turned around by the end of this Parliament. The priority was to help families who were stuck with many problems, often responsible for causing problems, and also costing society a large amount of money in terms of services. The report draws upon interviews with families carried out in May and June 2012 by Louise Casey. Six local authorities in England assisted with providing access to families.

1. A Community Budget for
Supporting Leicestershire’s
Troubled Families
Strategic Outline Case
Key Messages

2. Leicestershire’s Ambition for Our
Troubled Families
1. Significantly improving outcomes for families and their
children
2. Reducing the current costs of public services
“Our heart tells us we can’t just stand by… Our head
tells us we can’t afford to keep footing the
monumental bills for social failure. we have got to
take action to turn troubled families around”
David Cameron, 15th December 2011
2

3. National Update
3

4. Prevalence of Troubled Families in
Leicestershire
4

5. 5

6. 6

7. 7

8. Troubled Families Profile: 1300
49% of households have some 64% have educational risks
form of mental health problem truancy, >15%, SEN, exclusions,
Rises to 81% with Alcohol & Drug misuse class behaviour, PRU
1 in 2 families involved in 57% solely or heavily reliant upon
crime / ASB state benefits
75% actually in receipt of benefits
96% have at least one family
36% of families have a physical
dysfunction risk
DV, Behaviour, Poor Parenting, Safeguarding, health condition
unstable relationships etc 8

9. Troubled Families make up…
77% of Domestic Violence 70% of families assessed by
Casework children’s social care
Sourced from pilot work Summer 2010 are either TF or Threshold (Initial or Core)
79% of Youth Offending 96% of CAF Cases
TF (69% of casework)
Service Casework Threshold (27% of casework)
48% of Attendance 100% of Probation Casework
Improvement Service cases where probationer is a parent
9

10. District prevalence of TF families across
domains (1300)
Families with Criminal Justice Issues Families with Employment Issues
Families with Education Issues Families with Family Functioning Issues
Families with Mental Health Issues Families with Physical Health Isssues
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50 80 431 66 277 127 235 68
0
Blaby Charnwood Harborough Hinckley & Melton North West Oadby & 10
Bosworth Leicestershire Wigston

11. Services that know families with
crime/ASB issues
Common Assessment Framework Youth Offender Service Probation Data
District Council Children's Centre Family Intervention Project
Frameworki Children's Social Care
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Blaby Charnwood Harborough Hinckley & Melton North West Oadby &
Bosworth Leicestershire Wigston 11

12. What we learned from the Insight Phase…
Common issues for Families
 Confusing landscape of public  Difficulties maintaining relationships
services (incl. family, friends, peers, isolation
 Isolation in their communities & social marginalisation)
 Public services ‘do to them’  Lack of resilience (incl. capability,
 Lack of or limited choice/control capacity, confidence & inability to
cope)
 Public services in then out  Poor/overcrowded housing (incl.
 Adverse effect on aspirations/ homelessness)
perception of social mobility  High risk behaviours (incl. substance
 Domestic violence misuse)
 Poor parenting  Poverty (incl. debt & unemployment)
 Health (incl. mental health &
disability)
 Crime (offending and experience of)
 Lack of education/ attainment
12

13. Reoccurring Themes from Evidence Base,
Current Literature and National Policy on What
works:
 Early intervention  Tackling worklessness
 Building resilience  Tackling poor health
 Stability, continuity and  Tackling poverty
transitions  Involving communities and
 Effective parenting and building social capital
supporting families  Building capabilities, resilience
 Tackling educational and skills development
performance
13

14. Common Perspectives from Families
“Many families were resigned to their situations, and did not appear to take
responsibility for trying to improve them. One family had no sense of personal
responsibility at all, and another’s primary responsibility was to get services out
of their lives and would do and say things with that in mind”.
“Families saw limited value in just being told or taught how to do something.
They all wanted much more practical and hands on support, and wanted
someone to actually come in and actually show them how to do things. They
all appeared perfectly happy for someone to practically work with their
children on behalf or in front of them”.
“There is a real divergence between families’ own perceptions of themselves
and how they perceive that professionals view them. Families use words such
as caring, tight, coming together to sort their problems out etc. They say that
professionals would see them as hectic, needy, chaotic, trouble etc. Families
can’t see any recognition from many professionals of their strengths and just
feel they are viewed in the negative”.
14

15. Leicestershire’s Proposed
Troubled Family Model

16. Approved Family Model
Approved Family Model
Specialist
->
<-
Services
ft
Ac
hi
lS
t
Fa
ra
m
tu
ily
ul
->
C
<-
Co-located locality
service:
•Permanent core team
members inc Family
Worker Improved outcomes
•P/t Co-opted team Increased resilience, strengths &
members independence
•Personalised family Family
Family
budgets
Role:
Universal Targeted
Whole family approach
Services •Delivers direct support Services
•Co-ordinates other services
<-C >
ily-
•Outreach in home/community
u ltu •Assertive intensive support m
ra l Sh •Small caseloads t Fa
i ft
-> <- Ac
16

17. Review of National Family Intervention Project (FIP)
Released Dec 15th with Troubled Family Announcement
 FIP 4 year Programme
 Independent Study by NAT CEN
 8.8k families
Profile & Risk factors at Referral (Multiple factors)
 Family functioning - 81% families
 Poor parenting – 67%
 Relationship/family breakdown – 32%
 Domestic violence – 30%
 Child protection – 30%
 Crime/ASB – 39% /79%
 Child Behavioural problems – 60%
 Health Problems – 49%
 Mental health – 39%
 Physical health – 10%
 Not in Employment, Education & Training (over 18s) – 65% 17

18. NAT CEN FIP RESEARCH:
Outcomes for families exiting FIP
Outcome Improvements Recorded:
 Families involved in ASB
 A Reduction of 58% to 34%
 Families involved in Crime
 A Reduction of 41% to 20%
 Children with behavioural /truancy problems
 A Reduction of 53% to 28%
 Risks from poor family functioning (DV, family breakdown, child protection)
 A Reduction of 47% to 16%
 Child protection plans
 A Reduction of 34% to 18%
 Health risks including mental, physical health and substance misuse problems
 A Reduction of 34%
 In worklessness (ETE)
18
 A Reduction of 14% to 58%

19. Partners have agreed the twin aims of
improving outcomes for the families and
their children and reducing the cost to the
public sector of supporting the families
through system change.
19
© 2011 Deloitte MCS Limited. Private and confidential.