Agenda item
Working with Families Initiative
Verbal update and presentation on how the Council, with it’s partners, will assist families with children and young people in need to ensure they enjoy a good quality of life and develop as confidently and responsibly as possible. How it will improve the educational outcomes and promote the positive well-being of families in Brent. Presentation by Sara Williams
Minutes:
Sara Williams, Assistant Director Early Help and Education gave a presentation on the Working with Families Initiative. She explained that the initiative included the Council, with partners, assisting families with children and young people in need to ensure they enjoyed a good quality of life and developed as confidently and responsibly as possible. Family resilience was cited as being key to underpinning the project, particularly in light of the lack of early intervention services available to families. It was noted that there was a lack of co-ordination across services and partners with a whole system approach being required to ensure families did not fall through gaps.
Sara Williams explained that the troubled families initiative was a government based scheme which provided an initial fee and also paid upon results. It was hoped that by being able to address a families issues early, it would avoid them appearing later in the system and create savings in the long term. The Government had projected 120,000 troubled families within the UK, of which 810 resided in Brent. The scheme would last for three years, with 300 families being identified to be worked with within the first year of the project. A mapping exercise was currently taking place to establish the services and support currently being accessed by the 300 families identified, with a general approach with agencies to be agreed, particularly in terms of being assertive and persistent with families to realise that improvements need to be made. A multi-agency safeguarding hub (MASH) would be introduced to the civic centre to allow referrals to be streamlined and escalated appropriately, and reducing the potential of emergency cases being delayed. A family support service team with a key worker would be identified for each family, allowing the needs and requirement of the family to be coordinated and referrals to be made as necessary.
The Committee expressed concern that the project may evolve into addressing families in crisis rather than early intervention and queried how it would be rolled out further to ensure the best support for all. It was clarified that a child or family would only be part of the working with families’ initiative if they had come to the attention of an agency. Sara Williams clarified that it was a more holistic approach as the key worker could determine potential issues earlier, rather than it escalating and affecting the entire family on a greater scale. It was highlighted that some families would have a greater need than others and a set of national and local criteria had been identified to determine the families who would form part of the scheme. It was noted that the initial scheme was hoping to help 810 families as identified by central government and the payments by results and the savings achieved though children not entering the system at a later stage, would mean that greater work on intervention taking place in the future.
Members queried how success would be measured in order to achieve the payment by results. It was explained that a database would record whether a family’s issues had been resolved. A family’s issue could be considered resolved if a child was regularly attending school or no longer on the edge of care however it was noted that measurable outcomes would differ for each family. It was clarified that the payment would be received by the Council.
The Committee queried how the MASH would appear different and how the initiative would physically differ for a family. Sara Williams clarified that the MASH would incorporate all the relevant agencies to allow a referral to be made in conjunction with other agencies and to the same escalation standards. It was clarified that the physical difference for the family would be the key worker who would be looking at the family as a whole rather than the individual.
Members queried the quoted savings of £700,000, whether the savings were sustainable and how that figure had been determined. It was explained that the savings were hoped to be achieved through children not entering the system at a later stage and the money being reinvested. It was noted that further modelling on how the savings would be achieved needed to take place and would be circulated to the Committee.
RESOLVED:-
i.
Members noted the presentation
ii. That information be provided to the Committee on how the projected savings are to be achieved