Think Family/Troubled Families programme

The request was successful.

Dear Birmingham City Council,

1. Identification of Troubled Families

a. Can you provide a copy of the form to identify ‘Troubled Families’ referred to by Dawn Roberts in her verbal evidence at the Education and Vulnerable Children’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the 7th May 2014?
b. Can you provide any accompanying guidance for professionals for the identification for Troubled Families in Birmingham?
c. Can you provide the Data protection protocol’s for sharing information about families between professionals and agencies under the Think Family programme?

2. Use of sanctions

In her verbal evidence to the Education and Vulnerable Children’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the 7th May 2014 Dawn Roberts made the following statement about families not engaging with the Think Family programme.
It’s about assertive engagement... it’s also though, about implementing sanctions when that doesn't happen. (On video stream @1h28m)

a. Who is involved in making the decision to sanction families who fail to engage in the Think Family programme?
b. How is the impact of the sanction upon the welfare of the children in the family assessed in making a decision?
What are the grounds for imposing sanctions?
c. Please provide any written policies or guidance (including e-mails and memo’s) on the Think Family programme’s policy of implementing sanctions?
d. Can you specify what type of sanctions have been imposed and by what agency?
e. How many families have been sanctioned and give the numbers of families who have been sanctioned in different ways?
f. What evidence is there that the implementation of sanctions has led families to re-engage with the Think Family programme?

3. ‘Over programme’

Think Family report to the Education and Vulnerable Children Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 7th May 2014.
‘In order to achieve the 4180 successes the programme will ‘over programme’ by engaging with 5,972 families.’

a. Can you provide the copies of minutes of meetings and supporting papers where decision was made to ‘over programme’?

Yours faithfully,

Jolyon Jones

Tracey Robinson, Birmingham City Council

Dear Jolyon

 

Thank you for your request for information held by the Council under the
provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which was received on
15.5.2014

 

We will contact you again once it has been ascertained what data is held
by Birmingham City Council.  In some circumstances a fee may be payable
and if that is the case, we will let you know.  A fees notice will be
issued to you, and you will be required to pay before we will proceed with
your request.

 

If you require any further information or are not happy with our response
please do not hesitate to contact me quoting the reference number above in
any future communications.  Steve Cullen should also be copied in on any
correspondence relating to this request.

 

Yours sincerely

Tracey Robinson

Business Continuity and Information Governance Officer

 

 

Sent on behalf of:

Steve Cullen

Information Governance Manager

Governance and Policy

Children, Young People and Families Directorate

Birmingham City Council

 

Tel: 0121 464 4591

Email: [1][email address]

 

Data Protection Act 1998

The information you have provided within your Freedom of Information
request will be held on our database and may also be held within manual
records for a period of 2 years from the date Birmingham City Council
received your request. Any personal data that you provide to Birmingham
City Council will be held in line with the requirements set out within the
Data Protection Act 1998.

 

Re Use of Public Sector Information

Where Birmingham City Council is the copyright holder of any information
that may be released, re-use for personal, educational or non-commercial
purposes is permitted without further reference to the City Council. Where
the re-use is for other purposes, such as commercial re-use, the applicant
should notify the City Council in writing to seek approval or agree terms
for re-use.

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Steve Cullen, Birmingham City Council

7 Attachments

Dear Jolyon

 

I am writing in respect of your recent enquiry for information held by the
Authority under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000:

 

1.         Identification of Troubled Families

 

a. Can you provide a copy of the form to identify ‘Troubled Families’
referred to by Dawn Roberts in her verbal evidence at the Education and
Vulnerable Children’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the 7th May 2014?

b. Can you provide any accompanying guidance for professionals for the
identification for Troubled Families in Birmingham?

c. Can you provide the Data protection protocol’s for sharing information
about families between professionals and agencies under the Think Family
programme?

 

2.         Use of sanctions

 

In her verbal evidence to the Education and Vulnerable Children’s Overview
and Scrutiny Committee on the 7th May 2014 Dawn Roberts made the following
statement about families not engaging with the Think Family programme.

It’s about assertive engagement... it’s also though,  about implementing
sanctions when that doesn't happen. (On video stream @1h28m)

 

a. Who is involved in making the decision to sanction families who fail to
engage in the Think Family programme?

b. How is the impact of the sanction upon the welfare of the children in
the family assessed in making a decision?

What are the grounds for imposing sanctions?

c. Please provide any written policies or guidance (including e-mails and
memo’s) on the Think Family programme’s policy of implementing sanctions?

d. Can you specify what type of sanctions have been imposed and by what
agency?

e. How many families have been sanctioned and give the numbers of families
who have been sanctioned in different ways?

f. What evidence is there that the implementation of sanctions has led
families to re-engage with the Think Family programme?

 

3.         ‘Over programme’

 

Think Family report to the Education and Vulnerable Children Overview and
Scrutiny Committee on 7th May 2014.

‘In order to achieve the 4180 successes the programme will ‘over
programme’ by engaging with 5,972 families.’

 

a. Can you provide the copies of minutes of meetings and supporting papers
where decision was made to ‘over programme’?

 

Please see response below:

 

1.             Identification of Troubled Families

 

a. Can you provide a copy of the form to identify ‘Troubled Families’
referred to by Dawn Roberts in her verbal evidence at the Education and
Vulnerable Children’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the 7th May 2014?

 

Response: Attached document TF – ID of TF and or IFS Referral Form
20140501.doc

 

b. Can you provide any accompanying guidance for professionals for the
identification for Troubled Families in Birmingham?

 

Response: Attached document TF – Family Criteria 2013-09.pdf provides some
additional guidance.  In addition numerous briefings and discussions have
taken place with staff in the context of team meetings, workshops,
training sessions etc. The TFData mailbox and individual Think Family
staff will also give detailed and specific advice on the identification of
individual families.

 

c. Can you provide the Data Protection protocol’s for sharing information
about families between professionals and agencies under the Think Family
programme?

 

Response: Attached

 

2.             Use of sanctions

 

In her verbal evidence to the Education and Vulnerable Children’s Overview
and Scrutiny Committee on the 7th May 2014 Dawn Roberts made the following
statement about families not engaging with the Think Family programme.

It’s about assertive engagement... it’s also though,  about implementing
sanctions when that doesn't happen. (On video stream @1h28m)

 

a. Who is involved in making the decision to sanction families who fail to
engage in the Think Family programme?

 

Response: This decision would be made as part of the ongoing case
management process once all other avenues of engagement have been
explored. The Think Family Programme is a supportive programme to work to
achieve positive outcomes with families, and therefore sanctions will not
be considered unless judged absolutely necessary. However where there has
been a continuing lack of engagement from the family and the behaviour or
attendance issues are not improving there will be an assessment of the
situation by the Lead Professional with the lead agency.

 

The Lead Professional will evidence the approaches and support offered to
work with the family, assertively engaging to support families for up to
five hours per week  This will include holding a meeting with the relevant
lead agency to which the family will be invited. Lead agencies are those
who have statutory responsibility for responding to the issues triggering
the use of sanctions:

 

-           For persistent poor school attendance this is the school

-           For youth crime the Youth Offending Service has the
responsibility to enforce a lack of compliance by the young person and to
recommend a parenting contract or parenting order for future court
appearances if this is appropriate

-           For continued family anti-social behaviour – this will be
discussed at the Safer Communities Group and Safer Communities Officers
will take relevant action for example putting in place an Acceptable
Behaviour Contract.

 

Where attendance or behaviour has not improved and there are more than
single agency concerns multi-agency meetings will then take place where
appropriate to consider what further action is necessary.   

 

b. How is the impact of the sanction upon the welfare of the children in
the family assessed in making a decision?

 

Response: All lead agencies take into account welfare needs and also the
importance of setting clear aspirations for children and young people to
attend school and engage in positive behaviour.  Where there are
safeguarding concerns these are escalated immediately.

 

What are the grounds for imposing sanctions?

 

Response:

-           Persistent poor attendance and an assessment that there is
limited evidence of families engaging in resolving this.

-           Young person is re-offending or lack of compliance with a
Criminal Court Order. 

-           Persistent anti-social behaviour and an assessment that there
is a lack of engagement in response to this.

-           As with non Think Family cases, Department for Work and
Pensions may impose benefit sanctions where they judge that individuals
are not engaging sufficiently with the process of seeking employment.   

 

c. Please provide any written policies or guidance (including e-mails and
memo’s) on the Think Family programme’s policy of implementing sanctions?

 

Response: See attached flowchart TF Engagement and Sanction Process April
2014.pdf

 

d. Can you specify what type of sanctions have been imposed and by what
agency?

 

Response:

- DWP: reduction in benefits in accordance with Welfare Reform Act 2012

- Education Welfare Service and Schools: School Attendance Orders, Fixed
Penalty Notices

- Youth Offending Service: Parenting Contract, Parenting Order, Breach of
Statutory Order

                - Housing, Police: Acceptable Behaviour Contracts,
Injunctions, ASBO’s

 

e. How many families have been sanctioned and give the numbers of families
who have been sanctioned in different ways?

 

Response: Whilst individual agencies will record details of specific
sanctions applied to Think Family cases, as the process is still
developing the compilation of these statistics has not yet taken place. 
It is planned to report this information to the Think Family Board in due
course.

 

f. What evidence is there that the implementation of sanctions has led
families to re-engage with the Think Family programme?

 

Response: There is evidence in individual agencies that sanctions do
strengthen the engagement with young people and families. This is being
collated as above.

 

3.             ‘Over programme’

 

Think Family report to the Education and Vulnerable Children Overview and
Scrutiny Committee on 7th May 2014.

‘In order to achieve the 4180 successes the programme will ‘over
programme’ by engaging with 5,972 families.’

 

a. Can you provide the copies of minutes of meetings and supporting papers
where decision was made to ‘over programme’?

 

Response: The figure of 5,972 families actually relates to the original
target for the number of families meeting the criteria that would be
identified.  This was deliberately set higher than the 4,180 target for
families to be ‘turned around’ as it was always recognised that a
proportion of the families identified would not engage with the programme,
and that of those that did a further proportion would not achieve the
outcomes defined by DCLG within the lifetime of the programme. The
decision to over programme was therefore self evidently necessary and made
as part of the normal business of managing the performance of the Think
Family Programme.  As such it was not decided within a minuted meeting but
rather in discussion between the Think Family Data Manager and the
Strategic Lead.  There are no supporting papers for this decision. 

 

If you have any information which may assist us in determining or locating
any missed information, we would be grateful if you would contact us with
details of this information, so that we can conduct a further search.

 

If you are not satisfied with the response you may ask for an internal
review.  If subsequently you are not satisfied with the Council's decision
you may apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision.  Generally,
the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints
procedure provided by the Council.  The Information Commissioner can be
contacted at the following address:

 

The Information Commissioner

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

 

Telephone: 01625 545745             Web Address: [1]www.ico.gov.uk

 

Yours sincerely,

Steve Cullen

Information Governance Manager

Governance and Policy Team

Directorate for People

Birmingham City Council

 

Tel: 0121 464 4591

Email: [2][email address]

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.gov.uk/
2. mailto:[email address]

Dear Steve Cullen,

Thank you for the reply to this FoI request.

I do want to clarify a point relating to the original request.

Apart from the flow chart provided can you confirm that there is no written policy or guidance (including e-mails and memo’s) on the Think Family programme’s policy of implementing sanctions?

In particular how the welfare of the children within the family is to be considered in relation to a decision to impose a sanction including the consequences of the impact of that sanction upon the children.

Yours sincerely,

Jolyon Jones

Steve Cullen, Birmingham City Council

I am now away from the office until 23rd June 2014.  If you have an urgent
Information Security, Data Protection or Freedom of Information issue
please contact Tracey Robinson by phone on 0121 464 0085 or by email at
[email address]

For all other matters I will contact you when I return to the office.

show quoted sections

Tracey Robinson, Birmingham City Council

Dear Sirs

We have asked the relevant service area to review your additional
questions and will respond shortly.

Yours sincerely

Tracey Robinson

Governance and Policy

Directorate for People

Business Continuity & Information Governance Officer

PO Box 16568

1 Lancaster Circus

Birmingham

B2 2FX

 

show quoted sections

Tracey Robinson, Birmingham City Council

2 Attachments

Dear Sirs

 

I am writing in respect of your recent enquiry for information held by the
Authority under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000:

 

I do want to clarify a point relating to the original request.

 

Apart from the flow chart provided can you confirm that there is no 
written policy or guidance (including e-mails and memo’s) on the Think
Family programme’s policy of implementing sanctions?

 

In particular how the welfare of the children within the family is to be
considered in relation to a decision to impose a sanction including the
consequences of the impact of that sanction upon the children.

 

Please see response below:

 

Response:

All relevant policy and guidance has previously been supplied in the
response to FOI request 10978 and also the question on this subject asked
at the full City Council meeting of 01/07/14.  The relevant documentation
is again attached here.  In relation to the point regarding welfare of the
children being considered in sanctions decisions, the handbook extract
clearly states:

 

There are no new sanctions for the Think Family programme.  Each lead
agency has statutory responsibilities supported by a legislative framework
with expectations to implement sanctions fairly and appropriately,
promoting the welfare of children at all stages.

 

If you have any information which may assist us in determining or locating
any missed information, we would be grateful if you would contact us with
details of this information, so that we can conduct a further search.

 

If you are not satisfied with the response you may ask for an internal
review.  If subsequently you are not satisfied with the Council's decision
you may apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision.  Generally,
the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints
procedure provided by the Council.  The Information Commissioner can be
contacted at the following address:

 

The Information Commissioner

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

 

Telephone: 01625 545745             Web Address: [1]www.ico.gov.uk

 

Yours sincerely,

Tracey Robinson

Business Continuity and Information Governance Officer

 

 

Sent on behalf of:

Steve Cullen

Information Governance Manager

Governance and Policy Team

Directorate for People

Birmingham City Council

 

Tel: 0121 464 4591

Email: [2][email address]

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.gov.uk/
2. mailto:[email address]