The early help challenge for LSCBs

1. The early help challenge for LSCBs Professor Nick Frost n.frost@leedsmet.ac.uk

2. The aims of the presentation • To consider the role of early help in LCSB practice • Family support, early intervention or early help? • The process and outcomes of early help • A positive role for LSCBs inearly help?

3. Family support: a ‘slippery concept’ • attempts to prevent the emergence, or worsening, of family challenges on order to promote better outcomes for young people. • is based in theories of change. The aim of any family support intervention aims to result in some desirable change and draws on a belief that change is achievable. • also aims to generate wider social change and benefits. Such results may be saving in public expenditure, a decrease in social problems or a reduction in measurable outcomes such as the number of children coming into care

4. Early intervention • Early in the life of the child (brain development) • Early in the life of the problem • Evidence–based • 19 top programmes • Authoritative • [Allen Report]

5. Early help • “Early help is an ambiguous term, referring both to help in the early years of a child or young person’s life and early in the emergence of a problem at any stage in their lives” • “From a child or young person’s point of view, the earlier help is received the better. Research on children’s development emphasises the importance of the early years on their long-term outcomes so preventative services to help parents are a key strategy” • [Munro Report]

6. Key research example – Perry High Scope • Michigan in the 1960’s • African American 3-5 years olds • 2.5 hours of day care for the children during the week/active learning/child-centred model/home visiting program • 15/19/27/40 years of age research follow up – control and intervention group

7. Key research example – Perry High Scope Perry High Scope – 40th birthday follow up suggest $1 invested saves $12.90. The intervention group: • Are less likely to be arrested 5 times or more (36% as opposed to 55% of the control group) • More likely to earn $20k plus (60% as opposed to 40%) • More likely to graduate from high school (77% as opposed to 60%) • Achieve more highly at 15 (49% as opposed to 15%) • Complete homework (61% as opposed to 38%) • Have an IQ of 90+ at 5 (67% as opposed to 28%)  (Schweinhart et al, 2005, p.2)

8. Key research example – Perry High Scope • Bellfield et al undertook an overall Cost Benefit Analysis and estimate that $12.90 is saved from public costs for every $1 invested and argue that ‘program gains come mainly from reduced crime by males’

9. LARC findings • A range of support interventions were put in place to help families. Most commonly help was given to enhance parenting strategies; improve engagement in education; develop emotional health and resilience; engage in positive activities and promote physical health management. Families reported that the informal help and support given by lead professionals helped them manage their situations. (Local Authority Research Consortium (England) 4, Summary)

10. LARC findings • The researchers estimate that the ‘potential future outcome costs’ of the cases they explored were between £400 and £420,000. The cost of undertaking the ‘CAF and the intervention costs’ were between £1,500 and £27,000. It is argued that ‘potential savings’ range from £6,800 and £415,000. This evidence suggests that this form of early intervention is cost effective.

11. C4EO ‘Grasping the nettle’ (2011) • The best start in life • Language for life • Engaging parents • Smarter working, better services • Knowledge is power

12. Key judgement • Children and young people who are, or who are likely to be, at risk of harm or who are the subject of concern are identified and protected. Help is provided early in the emergence of a problem and is well coordinated and recorded through multi-agency arrangements. Thresholds between early help and statutory child protection work are appropriate, understood and operate effectively.

13. Key judgement • . The DCS works closely with the LSCB chair and the chief executive holds the LSCB chair to account for the effectiveness of the LSCB.

14. Key judgement • The LSCB is able to provide evidence that it coordinates the work of statutory partners in helping, protecting and caring for children in its local area and there are mechanisms in place to monitor the effectiveness of those local arrangements.

15. Key judgment • Regular and effective monitoring and evaluation of multi-agency front-line practice to safeguard children identifies where improvement is required in the quality of practice and services that children, young people and families receive. This includes monitoring the effectiveness of early help.

16. Outstanding? • The LSCB is likely to be outstanding if, in addition to meeting the requirements for a good judgement, it provides evidence of being a highly influential strategic arrangement that directly influences and improves performance in the care and protection of children. That improvement is sustained and extends across multi-disciplinary practice with children, young people and families.

17. Group work • What do LCSBs need to do immediately to address the early help challenge? • How do we need to be resourced? • What should be our medium / long-term goals in relationship to early help?

18. Issues and debates • Working relationship with DCS • Data gathering and analysis • Multi-professional approaches • ‘Highly influential’ • Focus on outcomes (but don’t forget process) • Public expenditure restrictions? • Resourcing Boards