Agenda item

Report of the Divisional Director of Quality Assurance, Commissioning and Schools

The Committee received a report of the Divisional Director of Quality Assurance, Commissioning and Schools which outlined the government’s Troubled Families Initiative. Families First was Harrow’s approach to the initiative and must identify and work with 395 families during the project.

The Chair welcomed Divisional Director of Quality Assurance, Commissioning and Schools and the Families First Project Co-ordinator to the meeting and drew Members’ attention to the case studies which had been circulated on Part II of the agenda.  The Divisional Director outlined the content of the report and advised that early feedback on the project was positive.

Members then made comments and asked questions as follows:

·                     In response to a question in relation to measurement of success and whether any guidance had been given, the Divisional Director advised that the Council was required to show that children that had been persistently absent from school now attended, a workless adult was now on a pathway to employment and that a family with anti social behaviour had stopped behaving in that way.

·                     The Divisional Director confirmed that targets were being set on a family by family basis which should then aggregate by July 2013.  Payment by Results were available through the 3 years of the project.

·                     A Member sought clarification as to the number of key workers and their capacity to deal with the workload.  The Divisional Director advised that there were 4 teams located within the Early Intervention Service with approximately 10-12 per team.  Good practice indicated that each key worker would have a caseload of between 12-17 cases.  The officer advised that the number of cases and their intensity would vary.

·                     A Member asked whether the project was self financing or was at cost to the Council.  It was expected that an increase in payment by results would be achieved.  Attachment fees would be received throughout the project, but the funding was front loaded.  A maximum of £4,000 was available per family consisting of up front attachment fees and payment by results.  The proportion of up front fee decreases each year as the element of Payment by Results increases.

·                     A Member stated that it appeared that the role of keyworker was crucial and she questioned whether, in the long term, there would be issues of continuity and how this would be managed.  The Divisional Director advised that there would inevitably changes in staff through the programme but that it was the role of the manager to manage any exits and handover.  This would, however, be a challenge for families.

o                   The Divisional Director advised that keyworkers came from a range of backgrounds ie social work, youth work, education welfare, and this meant that there was a multi disciplinary team.  Due to the nature of the criteria supplied by government for identifying families, the families in the programme were, however, not necessarily the most difficult to reach.  To date only 2 of the 125 families approach had indicated that they did not wish to participate.

·                     In response to a question as to what criteria would be set for the future in order that families did not require this level of involvement, the Divisional Director advised that as the service became better at identifying issues there would be a reduction in referrals to social care. School attendance and exclusions were an early indicator of issues.

·                     A Member asked whether there was any particular geographical area that the families requiring assistance resided and was advised that officers could provide details of the analysis done.

·                     In response to a Member’s question as to how the benefits gained by partners would be captured if the Council bore all the costs, the Divisional Director advised that the position would be clearer in July and that the case studies provided a direction of travel.  In terms of capturing benefits for the borough this needed to be considered in relation to longer term team work.  He advised that there was a link with the police and that they had family mentors working in a non statutory role.

·                     It was suggested that grass roots community groups be contacted to see if they could assist with the project.

The Chair thanked the Divisional Director and officer for their attendance and responses.  He suggested that the officers liaise with Scrutiny Lead Members and report back to a future meeting.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.