1. family and parenting

KEY DECISION NOTICE
SERVICE AREA:
PEOPLE DIRECTORATE
Strategy and Early Intervention
SUBJECT MATTER:
TROUBLED FAMILIES WAVE 2 – JOINT INVESTMENT
AGREEMENT
DECISION:
It is DETERMINED that:
DECISION MAKER:
(1)
the Council approves the new investment agreement
approach to working with a minimum of 1,750 ‘Troubled
Families’ (the remainder of families are to be worked with
primarily by the local authority);
(2)
Investment made by the Council is initially limited to the
fee provided by the Government needed to begin work
with a family (the attachment fee). This will be equivalent
to the number of families an agency is able to work with;
(3)
a results fee, provided by the Government, will be paid to
an agency where a family who are working with that
agency meets the criteria for a results payment from the
Government;
(4)
any agency willing to enter into the investment agreement
with the Council will have to abide by the terms of the
investment agreement including the provision of additional
investment and the demonstration of additional value;
(5)
A waiver is granted under PSO C3.2 to use the Negotiated
Tendering Procedure to enable a direct award of the
investment agreement with New Charter Housing Trust.
Councillor Allison Gwynne
Sandra Stewart*
Pam Williams*
DESIGNATION OF DECISION Executive Member - Children and Families
TAKER(S):
Executive Director of Governance (Borough Solicitor)*
Executive Director of Finance (Borough Treasurer)*
DATE OF DECISION:
25 March 2015
REASON FOR DECISION:
To permit a further a joint investment with New Charter Housing
Trust building upon the successful joint delivery in Wave 1.
ALTERNATIVE
OPTIONS An alternative option is to go out to tender and seek to procure an
REJECTED (if any):
investment partner through a competitive procedure. This is a
very expensive and inefficient option and the Council would in
effect be procuring exactly the same level of quality, activity and
provision, with minimal opportunity for improvement. In addition,
the market would be severely restricted in that the tender would
not be an attractive option to many would-be providers.
CONSULTEES:
Internal only.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The Troubled Families wave 2 investment agreements will be
(Authorised by Borough restricted to the sum provided by Central Government and which
Treasurer)
is estimated in table 2 within section 5.3 of the report.
There are a minimum number of families to support in the
programme (total of 1750). The Council will receive an initial sum
for each family supported known as the attachment fee (£1000 per
family). An additional sum per family will be received when those
outcomes are achieved (£800 per family) known as payment by
results (PBR).
The table 2 within section 5.3 of the report details the estimated
income and expenditure by each partner agency involved in the
programme. All allocated income and expenditure will be
monitored in line with the councils monitoring process. A robust
performance management framework will be required to ensure
outcomes are monitored and delivered and that there is an
associated transparent audit trail.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:
It is lawful to enter into arrangements of this nature. The services
(Authorised by Borough will be subject to the light touch regime under Section 7 of the
Solicitor)
Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and not subject to the full
procurement rules. An exception is required under PSO C3.2 to
dispense with a competitive procedure which must be approved
by the Executive Director (Governance) and Executive Director
(Finance) in consultation with the Executive Member.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
None.
DISPENSATION
GRANTED Not required.
BY
STANDARDS
COMMITTEE ATTACHED:
ACCESS TO INFORMATION:
The background papers (including consultation documents and
responses) relating to this report can be inspected by contacting
the report writer Thomas Johnson by:
Telephone:0161 342 3334
e-mail: thomas.johnson@tameside.gov.uk
Signed…………………………………………………..… Dated………………………………
Councillor Allison Gwynne – Executive Member - Children and Families
Signed…………………………………………………..… Dated………………………………
Sandra Stewart – Executive Director of Governance (Borough Solicitor)*
Signed…………………………………………………..… Dated………………………………
Pam Williams – Executive Director of Finance (Borough Treasurer)*
*With respect to a decision under Procurement Standing Order C3.2 only
KEY DECISION REPORT
SERVICE AREA:
PEOPLE DIRECTORATE
Strategy and Early Intervention
SUBJECT MATTER:
TROUBLED FAMILIES WAVE 2 – JOINT INVESTMENT
AGREEMENT
DATE OF DECISION:
25 March 2015
DECISION TAKER
Councillor Allison Gwynne, Executive Member - Children and
Families
Sandra Stewart – Executive Director of Governance (Borough
Solicitor)*
Pam Williams – Executive Director of Finance (Borough
Treasurer)*
REPORTING OFFICER:
Stephanie Butterworth – Executive Director (People)
REPORT SUMMARY:
The report provides details of phase 2 of the Governments
Troubled Families programme and the actions taken by the
Council in consultation with Greater Manchester Authorities to
influence its strategic direction. The report seeks approval to
continue with joint investment arrangements with public
sector agencies to meet the requirements and objectives of
phase 2.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is DETERMINED that:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
JUSTIFICATION FOR
DECISION:
the Council approves the new investment agreement
approach to working with a minimum of 1,750
‘Troubled Families’ (the remainder of families are to
be worked with primarily by the local authority);
investment made by the Council is initially limited to
the fee provided by the Government needed to begin
work with a family (the attachment fee). This will be
equivalent to the number of families an agency is able
to work with;
a results fee, provided by the Government, will be
paid to an agency where a family who are working
with that agency meets the criteria for a results
payment from the Government;
any agency willing to enter into the investment
agreement with the Council will have to abide by the
terms of the investment agreement including the
provision of additional investment and the
demonstration of additional value;
a waiver be granted under PSO C3.2 to use the
Negotiated Tendering Procedure to enable a direct
award of the investment agreement with New Charter
Housing Trust.
To permit a further a joint investment with New Charter
Housing Trust building upon the successful joint delivery in
Wave 1.
ALTERNATIVE
OPTIONS An alternative option is to go out to tender and seek to
REJECTED (if any):
procure an investment partner through a competitive
procedure. This is a very expensive and inefficient option
and the Council would in effect be procuring exactly the same
level of quality, activity and provision, with minimal
opportunity for improvement. In addition, the market would
be severely restricted in that the tender would not be an
attractive option to many would-be providers.
CONSULTEES:
Internal only.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The Troubled Families wave 2 investment agreement will be
(Authorised
by
Borough restricted to the sum provided by Central Government and
Treasurer)
which is estimated in table 2 within section 5.3 of the report.
There are a minimum number of families to support in the
programme (total of 1750). The Council will receive an initial
sum for each family supported known as the attachment fee
(£1000 per family). An additional sum per family will be
received when those outcomes are achieved (£800 per
family) known as payment by results (PBR).
The table 2 within section 5.3 of the report details the
estimated income and expenditure by each partner agency
involved in the programme. All allocated income and
expenditure will be monitored in line with the councils
monitoring process. A robust performance management
framework will be required to ensure outcomes are monitored
and delivered and that there is an associated transparent
audit trail.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:
It is lawful to enter into arrangements of this nature. The
(Authorised
by
Borough services will be subject to the light touch regime under
Solicitor)
Section 7 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and not
subject to the full procurement rules. An exception is
required under PSO C3.2 to dispense with a competitive
procedure which must be approved by the Executive Director
(Governance) and Executive Director (Finance) in
consultation with the Executive Member.
RISK MANAGEMENT:
Risk should be minimal as partners will only receive joint
investment funds as an when the LA receive these funds from
Government. There may be other risks including the risk of
not performing to requirements, this will be managed on an
ongoing basis by continuous performance monitoring and
robust audit arrangements.
LINKS TO COMMUNITY PLAN:
Healthy Tameside, Supportive Tameside, Prosperous
Tameside, Learning Tameside, Safe Tameside
ACCESS TO INFORMATION:
The background papers (including consultation documents
and responses) relating to this report can be inspected by
contacting the report writer Thomas Johnson by:
Telephone:0161 342 3334
e-mail: thomas.johnson@tameside.gov.uk
1.
BACKGROUND
1.1
In April 2012, the Government launched the Troubled Families Programme a £448 million
scheme to incentivise local authorities and their partners to turn around the lives of 120,000
troubled families by May 2015. The current programme works with families where children
are not attending school, young people are committing crime, families are involved in antisocial behaviour and adults are out of work.
1.2
In June 2013, the Government announced plans to expand the Troubled Families
Programme for a further five years from 2015/16 and to reach up to an additional 400,000
families across England. £200 million has been committed to fund the first year of this five
year programme. This increased investment is testament to the Government’s ongoing
commitment to improve the lives of troubled families and as this work is taken to a
significantly greater scale, to transform local public services and reduce costs for the longterm.
1.3
Over the last 3 years Tameside has successfully delivered Phase 1 of the Troubled Families
agenda. The approach taken in Tameside has proved to be one of the most successful in
both Greater Manchester and across the country. Throughout the course of the 3 years,
Tameside has consistently performed and is now set to achieve 100% of results from Phase
1 by March 2015. These results include reductions in anti-social behaviour and crime,
improvements in school attendance and behaviour and progress towards work.
Furthermore, as a result of the approach taken, 146 families with complex issues (or 25% of
the results) have gained employment. Again, Tameside is the top performing authority in GM
in terms of moving people into work and set against the complex nature of issues presented
by families this can be considered a exceptional achievement.
1.4
Central to the successes in Phase 1 has been the model and approach taken namely:

Jointly investing across agencies – this ensures additional resources are provided
and a wider range and number of families can be worked with. It allows us to scale up
the key worker model across a wider range of agencies. It allowed us to test an
innovative and effective model of using resources to both create economies of scale
and inform and drive forward the wider reform of public services.

Taking a wider ‘Early Intervention’ Approach – though Phase 1 required us to work
with 620 families who met specific criteria set out in the national framework, it was
important that we did not just focus on this strict criteria and that we sought to address
wider issues presented by complex families beyond this criteria in order to truly
address the underlying issues presented by families (e.g. Mental Health, Domestic
Violence, Family Breakdown, financial and benefit issues etc). In addition, it was
important that we shifted our resource to an earlier intervention level to ensure that
worked with families at an earlier stage to prevent issues escalating to a more serve
level and avoided expensive statutory interventions further down the line. To this end,
though we effectively worked with our allocated 620 families, our Early Intervention
model worked with a much wider cohort of 1000 per annum.

Using the Troubled Families programme as a catalyst to drive forward the Public
Service Reform agenda and integrate public services – a clear goal of the local
model and approach was to ensure that we did not run Troubled Families as a
‘programme’ but used the opportunity presented by the multi-disciplinary agenda, in the
context of wider Complex Dependency, to bring together the strands of PSR (Complex
Dependency, Work and Skills, Early Years, Transforming Justice and Health and
Social Care Integration) into a whole-place, pan-public service model which aims to
reduce demand presenting to public services, test out new models and ultimately
reduce costs.
2.
‘EARLY STARTER’ AUTHORITIES
2.1
The Government announced in the Budget 2014 that it would offer the highest performing
areas (those that have ‘turned around’ the lives of the most families in the current
Programme) the opportunity to start delivery of the expanded Troubled Families Programme
early – during 2014/15. Tameside was one of fifty-one such areas were identified and signed
up to be part of the first wave of ‘early starter’ areas. These areas began delivery in
September 2014 and have been working intensively with the National Troubled Families
Team to implement and refine the operating model for the national roll out of the expanded
Troubled Families Programme from March 2015.
2.2
As an ‘early starter’ area, Tameside has had an important role to play; these areas have
been critical to maintaining the momentum of the current Troubled Families Programme and
helping to build a strong evidence base in order to inform the case for continued investment
in the expanded programme beyond 2015/16. Furthermore, these areas have been working
with the Troubled Families Team on the detail of the new Financial Framework and have
helped refine and improve the guidance and support offered to other local areas as they join
the programme. The early starters are the best performing areas in the country.
2.3
Tameside has been working with both Greater Manchester colleagues and the Troubled
Families Team to build in flexibility into the Financial Framework for wave/phase 2 and the
national model for the next phase has been heavily informed by the model in Tameside and
other areas in Greater Manchester due to the exceptional performance of these models.
This collaborative work has had a particular emphasis on the following:






The development of an independent national evaluation for the expanded Troubled
Families Programme;
The completion and continued improvement of the Troubled Families online cost
savings calculator;
The design and implementation of a new system of Family Progress Data;
The refinement of the indicators suggested to identify families and the development of
best practice approaches to measuring significant and sustained progress with families;
The design of the ‘spot check’ process for results and engagement of local authority
Internal Auditors in the approval of local results claims; and
The introduction of a model of transparent local accountability for the success of the
programme as a tool to drive greater service transformation, using streamlined data
collection tools.
2.4
Greater Manchester is unique in the country in terms of being the only area to take a joint
sub-regional approach to delivering phase 2 and placed firmly in the context of the
agreement and clear expectation that agencies across GM will work together to address
complex dependency at scale, with a strong focus on work and skills. GM has made a
commitment to engage 50,000 individuals or families over a three year period. This
commitment sits alongside and is complementary to an allocation of 27,000 families over a 5
year period under the Troubled Families Programme and GM’s early adopter status in Phase
2 of the programme.
2.5
Tameside’s allocation for the Early Adopter period (September 14 – March 2015) was an
additional 313 families above and beyond the 620 according to phase 1 criteria. Due to the
model, we are already engaged with 100% of these additional families.
3.
IDENTIFYING FAMILIES – PHASE 2
3.1
The current Troubled Families Programme has led the way for the first systematic
identification of families with multiple problems across England. The expanded Troubled
Families Programme will retain the current programme’s focus on families with multiple high
cost problems and continue to include families affected by poor school attendance, youth
crime, anti-social behaviour and unemployment. However, it will also reach out to families
with a broader range of problems, including those affected by domestic violence and abuse,
with younger children who need help, where crime and anti-social behaviour problems may
become intergenerational and with a range of physical and mental health problems.
3.2
Reflecting the expanded programme’s focus on a broader range of family problems, rather
than a small number of nationally defined criteria, the inclusion of families into the
programme will be based upon a cluster of six headline problems. Below these problems will
sit a basket of indicators, suggested nomination3 routes and information sources, which local
authorities should use to identify families with these problems. While the headline family
problems on which the programme focuses are unlikely to change, the indicators and
information sources underneath are designed to be flexible and can be updated over the
course of the programme’s proposed five year life.
3.3
There will not be a sign off process where local authorities look to introduce new or different
indicators under any of the six problems as this is intended to be a locally responsive and
flexible model. However, to ensure best practice examples are shared and the list of
indicators provided to local authorities is up to date, local authorities should inform the
Troubled Families Team if they would like to use new or different indicators or information
sources.
To be eligible for the expanded programme, each family must have at least two of the
following six problems:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Parents and children involved in crime or anti-social behaviour.
Children who have not been attending school regularly.
Children who need help: children of all ages, who need help, are identified as in need
or are subject to a Child Protection Plan.
Adults out of work or at risk of financial exclusion or young people at risk of
worklessness.
Families affected by domestic violence and abuse.
Parents and children with a range of health problems.
3.4
While families may be identified as eligible for the programme on the basis of two problems,
the information available at the point of identification may not reflect the entirety of each
family’s complexity of problems. Some problems, such as domestic violence or mental
illness, may be hidden from public services until work begins with the family and uncovers
the full extent of their needs. A similar situation has been apparent in the current Troubled
Families Programme whereby families have entered the current programme having met at
least three eligibility criteria, but our evaluation has so far found that, on average, families
have nine significant problems on entry to the programme. The expanded Troubled Families
Programme remains a programme for families with multiple, high cost problems, although the
profile and extent of these problems may differ from those of families supported by the
current programme.
3.5
The formula for identifying families allows for a level of discretion which should be exercised
reasonably. Local authorities should identify families across all six problems and ensure the
Programme’s resources are being used to best effect. Families should be prioritised for
inclusion in the programme on the basis of the following:

They are families with multiple problems who are most likely to benefit from an
integrated, whole-family approach; and

They are families who are the highest cost to the public purse.
3.6
While the detail of this prioritisation should be agreed locally, the periodic collection and
publication of Family Monitoring/ Progress Data and the cost savings calculator for every
local area will provide a form of accountability. These will show the types of families and
problems that areas are prioritising. The Troubled Families Team will also consider this
information as part of the programme’s ongoing ‘spot check’ processes. The Troubled
Families Team has been collecting examples from ‘early starter’ areas over the past few
months to gather information regarding the prioritisation of families, which will inform
guidance for the national roll out from March 2016.
4.
MEASURING SUCCESS
4.1
The expanded Troubled Families Programme has ambitious service transformation goals
and therefore differs from the current programme in how it will measure, and pay for success.
Rather than focusing on a small number of relatively tightly defined national results to be
achieved with each family it asks local authorities and their partners to measure success in
three main ways for which funding is available:
4.2
Firstly, by demonstrating either significant and sustained progress or continuous employment
with an agreed number of families in each upper-tier local authority, representing the area’s
share of the estimated national total of 400,000 families. Each family’s achievement of
‘significant and sustained’ progress will be assessed against a locally defined Troubled
Family Outcomes Plan. This will provide a new, more flexible approach to measuring results.
See Annex D and E for more detail.
4.3
Funding for this is available for each family who achieves success and will be paid in two
parts: an upfront attachment fee of £1,000 per family and a results-based payment of £800
per family. Once the programme is rolled out nationally from April 2015, payments of
attachment fees will normally be made in the first quarter of each financial year, subject to
satisfactory performance against the previous year’s agreed commitments in regard to the
number of families for which attachment fees were received.
4.4
Secondly, by capturing a much richer understanding of the progress achieved with a
representative sample of families across a broader range of outcomes. This will be achieved
during 2014/15 through the collection and publication of Family Monitoring Data (using
existing systems). However, this approach has been improved through a co-design process
with ‘early starter’ areas to focus more on capturing a richer picture of the progress achieved
(Family Progress Data) with a representative sample of families through the programme.
4.5
Finally, by developing a much better understanding of the financial benefits achieved through
the programme and by stimulating ongoing service transformation through transparent local
accountability for these benefits. All local authorities will be asked to complete the online
troubled families cost savings calculator, which has already been made available. The
calculations produced by local areas and Family Progress Data analysis will be published
periodically. This will show the complexity of the families supported by the programme, the
effectiveness of interventions and the benefits of this work to local services and the taxpayer.
Family Outcomes Plan
4.6
Results should only be claimed once a Troubled Families Outcomes Plan is in place and has
been shared with the area’s Internal Auditors as part of their sign off process . In addition to
the requirements to provide Family Monitoring/ Progress Data and information to support the
cost savings calculator, Tameside has been working with GM and Internal Auditors to set out
a common Family Outcomes Plan across the sub-region. This document is designed to act
as a guide for programme teams, frontline workers and audit teams involved in the payment
by results claims process for phase 2 of the national Troubled Families Programme as
required.
4.7
It sets out an agreed approach to evidencing when a family has achieved ‘significant and
sustained’ progress and is eligible for payment by the terms of the Troubled national
Financial Framework and the agreed measures that can be drawn upon as evidence that the
family has achieved significant and sustained improvement for particular issues. The GM
Family Outcomes Plan can be seen in Appendix 1.
5.
FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
5.1
Achieving the locally determined outcomes set out in the GM Family Outcomes Plan that
demonstrate significant and sustained improvement with these families will attract
funding from government of up to £1800 per family; this is made up of £1000 in an upfront attachment fee and £800 when those outcomes are achieved.
5.2
An overall breakdown of these numbers and a comparison to Phase1 (TF1) and Early
Starter (ES) numbers can be seen in the table below (Phase 2 – TF2 – will run over a 5
year period):
Table 1:
TF1
District
Tameside
GM
Total TF2
(ES) Total
Early
Starter
(ES)
Allocation
%
Share
of GM
Attachment
Fee
£
Allocation
Allocation*
620
2,084
313
8.5
313,000
7,335
27,200
3,699
100
3,699,000
(ES)
Estimated
possible
PbR
payments
£
TF2 Total
Attachment
Fee
£
Estimated
possible
PbR
payments
£
250,400
2,084,000
1,667,200
2,959,200
27,200,000
21,760,000
* Note: that as GM have committed to work with these families as a sub-region, this is an
indicative number. As such there is scope for increasing Tameside’s share of families should
the model have the capacity to do so.
5.3
The overall estimated income and expenditure (details of proposal can be seen in Section 6,
Joint Investment) is as follows:
Table 2:
Early
Starter
Year
actual
Year 1
estimate
Year 2
estimate
Year 3
estimate
Year 4
estimate
Year 5
estimate
Year 6
estimate
Full
Period
2014/15 £
2015/16
£
2016/17
£
2017/18
£
2018/19
£
2019/20
£
2020/21
£
Total
2014/152020/21 £
Income
Attachment
PBR Estimated
(dependent on results)
Service
Transformation Grant
313,000
Total Income
Expenditure
New Charter Housing
Trust
354,373
354,373
354,373
354,373
354,373
250,400
283,499
283,499
283,499
283,499
49,725
147,000
147,000
147,000
147,000
147,000
362,725
751,773
784,872
784,872
784,872
784,872
286,200
286,200
286,200
286,200
286,200
2,084,867
283,499
1,667,893
784,725
283,499
4,537,485
1,431,000
National Probation
Service
Greater Manchester
Police
Attachment TMBC
Direct Payments
TMBC
63,000
63,000
63,000
63,000
315,000
567,000
107,535
107,535
107,535
107,535
107,535
537,675
313,000
0
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
100,000
TMBC staff
1,620
91,180
93,020
94,970
96,980
97,990
475,760
Total Expenditure
Residual balance
unallocated
1,620
880,915
569,755
571,705
573,715
826,725
3,111,435
361,105
-129,142
215,117
213,167
211,157
-41,853
283,499
1,113,050
Service Transformation Element
5.4
The other important source of funding within the expanded programme is a Service
Transformation Grant (STG) and this is given to areas in recognition of the programme’s
over-arching goal – to help facilitate the delivery of services to these families across all
relevant local providers in the most effective way, maximising value for money and
evidencing that this is the case. This is of particular importance given the continuing
imperative to reduce overall public spending over the coming years.
5.5
It is expected by the central government that this element is used as an enabler in securing
the engagement of partners at strategic and operational levels, brokering information and
data sharing, undertaking workforce reform, having sufficient analytical capacity and
expertise to understand what is being achieved with these families, by which service(s), for
what fiscal benefit and to whom that benefit accrues.
5.6
The Service Transformation Grant (STG) will be paid directly to Greater Manchester as a sub
region (£2.1m in 2015/16) and will be apportioned to local authorities according to their
cohort and population size. Around 15% the local allocation is likely to be top-sliced to
Greater Manchester as a whole to ensure we are able to fulfil the evaluation requirements as
a sub region. On this basis, we estimate that Tameside’s STG will be around £137,445 per
annum (7.7% share of GM families less 15% top slice).
6.
JOINT INVESTMENT AND ‘SCALING-UP’ PROPOSAL
6.1
Building upon the successes of phase 1 and the supporting foundation provided by the Joint
Investment Agreement. We propose that we not only maintain the highly effective elements
of the agreement from phase 1 but build upon this to include other partners and ensure that
we amend some operational details to fit.
6.2
The successful model of the Joint Investment Agreement would see the Council agree to
invest the troubled families unit’s funds on the basis that other agencies or organisations also
agree to contribute to that investment. The agreement will be entered into on the basis that
any future benefits (from both reduced demand and results payments) are likely to accrue to
either both agencies or the public purse as a whole once the results are achieved. Savings
can be used either to partially reimburse an agency for its initial investment or reinvested to
scale up the successful intervention.
6.3
There are a number of elements to the Joint Investment Agreement to support Phase 2
requirements in the context of wider public service reform and integration.
Part A - Joint Investment with New Charter Housing Trust
6.4
This sees a joint investment with New Charter Housing Trust building upon the successful
joint delivery in phase 1. Phase 2 would be an agreement to work with at least 250 families
per year (1045 over 5 years). This is on the basis of 15 x Key Workers including a specialist
Early Key Worker and plus provision of a Housing Officer to work with the Troubled Families
cohort, provide additional tenancy expertise for the Public Service Hub and case manage a
minimum of 5 additional cases at any one time (financial breakdown in Table 3).
Part B - Joint Investment with Probation
6.5
This sees a joint investment with the National Probation Service, again building upon the
successful joint delivery in phase 1 but doubling the resource to ensure we can maximise the
return on investment. Phase 2 would be an agreement to work with at least 60 families per
year (300 over 5 years) this is on the basis of 2 x Key Workers who will be working primarily
with higher level cases with probation involvement. Both of which will interface and work
closely with the Public Service Hub (financial breakdown in Table 3).
Part C - Joint Investment with Greater Manchester Police - Police Community Support
Officer
6.6
This sees a scaling up of the joint investment by incorporating Greater Manchester Police
directly into the model. This will allow us to scale up the model, provide additional expertise
and ensure that the model is scaled up to support the wider Public Service Reform agenda.
Phase 2 would be an agreement to work with at least 94 families per year (470 over 5 years)
using the ‘Key Worker’ approach. This is on the basis of 4 x Police Community Support
Officers/Key Workers. In addition, this will allow us to test closer working between the
‘People’ based element of reform incorporating the Public Service Hub and the ‘Place’ based
element of reform incorporating locality neighbourhood services (financial breakdown in
Table 3).
Part D - Supporting/additional elements
6.7
In addition to the main Joint Investment agreement with partners there are a number of other
supporting elements which contribute simultaneously to Troubled Families Phase 2, the
Public Service Hub and the Public Service Reform Agenda.

Families Welfare Officer – To date we have seconded a specialist Welfare Rights
Officer to work both within the Public Service Hub and to be used as a resource for
Early Intervention Services including direct work with those families matching the
‘Troubled Families’ criteria in Phase 1. This role has also been integral to supporting
families affected by the Benefit Cap and supporting and preparing individuals for the
transfer to Universal Credit. This resource been used as an expertise for key workers
to pull on but also has a dual role as a Key Worker enabling a small number of
appropriate cases to be carried. This not only increases the capacity of the model but
also allows us to transcend traditional service boundaries (financial breakdown in Table
3).

Direct Payments (DP)/ Personal Preventative Budgets (PPB) - An essential element
of the model is to ensure that we are able to respond effectively to need presenting
rather than traditional and rigid remits. We know from learning from our work to date
that cases can require ‘bespoke’ support in order to effect sustainable change. These
can be simple and low cost solutions which prevent high cost interventions further
downstream. In addition, the Direct Payment approach has been successfully piloted
with the ISCAN team and has provided an innovative, person centred response to
recent Serious Case Reviews where traditional responses did not meet the needs of
individuals and families where they did not hit statutory thresholds.
Direct Payments are an alternative to traditional care and support services. Services
provide cash payments for individuals to purchase services that meet their assessed
needs. This gives the person receiving services more choice and control over how
their needs are met.
Direct Payments users/customers can choose to employ their own care worker(s)
known as Personal Assistants or contract an agency that they have selected or a
combination of the two. Some Direct Payments customers choose to have Direct
Payments to meet some of their needs while other services meet the rest.
The Direct Payments Service will provide support and guidance on how to manage
Direct payments money, how to recruit a Personal Assistant, how to be a fair employer,
and many more things beside. A contract is in place to ensure that financial
regulations are monitored effectively.
The Direct Payments Service will provide a free payroll service for any Direct Payments
customer who employs a Personal Assistant. The Direct Payments Finance Team who
will provide support and training to manage any of the Finance paperwork required by
Tameside MBC and audit requirements will also be met through this service.
Personal Preventative Budgets work on a similar principle but allow very small amounts
of money to be managed by a family’s Key Worker in order to address simple, subthreshold and one off problems to support interventions and prevent high cost needs
developing.
Both DPs and PPBs are only to be used on a discretionary basis where all other
avenues have been explored. The provision of a DP or PPB can only be approved by
the Multi-agency team in the Public Service Hub (breakdown of costs detailed in Table
3).

Analysts – In order to meet the analytical, PBR and evaluation requirements for both
GM and central government 2 Analysts Posts are to be funded by the Service
Transformation Element of the Grant.

Employment Advisors – Due to the successful employment outcomes achieved in
Phase 1 through the secondment of Troubled Families Employment Advisors from
DWP to Local Authorities. Extra resource has been put into the Programme at a
national level to not only continue but increase this resource. As a result, Tameside
will have 2 x Seconded Employment Officers from DWP. This is resourced by central
government and as such has no cost to the LA.

Interface with USDL (Universal Support Delivered Locally) Pilot and Working Well
– Though Troubled Families Phase 2 will need to meet certain national requirements,
again it is important that our approach locally does not run in isolation but is central to
driving forward and supporting other areas of Public Service Reform. First of all our
model, in terms of Troubled Families, Early Intervention Services and the Public
Service Hub is working closely with DWP to Pilot an Integrated Intervention Approach
to supporting families with complex needs prepare for the roll-out of Universal Credit.
This essentially sees DWP and the LA sharing information, coordinating their
interventions and key workers working more closely with Work Coaches from Job
Centre Plus. There is no additional cost to the LA for this.
As the Troubled Families Phase 2 allocations are part of the wider devolution
agreement at a GM level to work with 50,000 complex individuals or families it is
important that our approach sits firmly within the wider approach to tackling issues of
complex dependency to reduce demand on all public services. An important part of
this is to ensure that the Working Well programme, commissioned at a GM level, to
work with people experiencing mental and physical health problems to enter
employment, is embedded into the model.
The Working Well programme is
commissioned specifically to mirror the successful approach taken through Troubled
Families using Key Workers. There is no additional cost to the LA for this.
Table 3:
Part A
TMBC
Investment
NCHT
Investment
Potential
Payment
Results
Part B
Year 1 £
Year 2 £
Year 3 £
Year 4 £
Year 5 £
Total £
159,000
159,000
159,000
159,000
159,000
166,912
166,912
166,912
166,912
166,912 1,169,910
127,200
127,200
127,200
127,200
127,200
Year 1 £
Year 2 £
Year 3 £
Year 4 £
Year 5 £
795,000
636,000
Total £
TMBC
Investment
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
175,000
Probation
(NPS)
Investment
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
175,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
28,000
140,000
Potential
Payment
Results
Part C
TMBC
Investment
GMP
Investment
Potential
Payment
Results
Part D
Direct Payments
Budget
Families
Welfare Officer
Early Starter
ELEMENT
Year 1 £
Year 2 £
Year 3 £
Year 4 £
Year 5 £
Total £
59,535
59,535
59,535
59,535
59,535
297,675
59,535
59,535
59,535
59,535
59,535
297,675
48,000
48,000
48,000
48,000
48,000
240,000
Year 1 £
Year 2 £
Year 3 £
Year 4 £
Year 5 £
Total £
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
100,000
35,669
35,669
35,669
35,669
35,669
178,346
313,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
313,000
Total
Investment
TMBC
273,535
273,535
273,535
273,535
273,535 1,859,021
Total
Investment
Partner
Agencies
261,447
261,447
261,447
261,447
261,447 1,642,585
Total Possible
Results
Payments
(Partner
Agencies)
203,200
203,200
203,200
203,200
203,200 1,016,000
Total Possible
Results
Payments
283,499
283,499
283,499
283,499
283,499 1,417,493
Total Minimum
Allocation
Numbers
NCH
Probation
GMP
Remainder (EH)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Total
159
35
59
97
159
35
59
97
159
35
59
97
159
35
59
97
159
35
59
97
795
175
295
485
Total estimated
Numbers to be
worked with
350
350
350
350
350
1750
Partner Agency
Minimum Family
Numbers
253
253
253
253
253
1265
Additional
Allocation
Numbers
through JI
NCH
Probation
GMP
Early Help Full
Annual
Caseload (Less
97)
Total additional
per annum
JI total
Capacity
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Total
Over 5
year
Period
Year 5
50
25
35
50
25
35
50
25
35
50
25
35
50
25
35
250
125
175
903
903
903
903
903
4515
1013
1013
1013
1013
1013
5065
1363
1363
1363
1363
1363
6815
6.8
The Council will nominate families to each agency through the Multi-Agency Public Service
Hub. The starting point, in terms of needs which need to be addressed, will be identified at
this stage. The results expected will be specified according to the clearly defined criteria of
the troubled families payment by results framework. Families will need to agree to participate
in the scheme and agree that information can be shared between agencies in order to deliver
the programme and work effectively with the family.
6.9
Agencies will not be prescribed a detailed specification for their intervention model but will
be expected to:

Case manage a family across the full range of needs within that family;






Identify a key worker to take the lead and coordinate the intervention across all public
services;
Utilise the Common Assessment process for cases as a whole rather than individuals;
Comply with requirements of audit, Family Monitoring Data and the Family Outcomes
Plan;
Integrate with the Public Service Hub and help contribute the Public Service Reform
and integration agenda;
Respond to needs presented by cases/families rather than respond based on
organisational remits;
Comply with the USDL pilot and work closely with Working Well colleagues.
6.10
Investing agencies will be required to submit evidence as specified by the Council and
Greater Manchester as part of a monitoring, evaluation and review process. This will
provide the appropriate evidence needed to review the efficacy of the working models,
obtain any results payments and will inform any future decisions to either scale up an
investment, adapt the model or disinvest from a model.
7.
RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1
As detailed at the front of this report.
APPENDIX 1
GM Family Outcomes Plan