Bristol Family Support Project

1

• Bristol Family Support Project
• Outcomes
• Hilary Horan-Childrens Services Manager
• hilary.horan_at_barnardos.org.uk

2
The Bristol Family Support Project

• Set up in 2005 within Bristol City Councils Anti
  Social Behaviour Team
• Working with households failing to comply with
  the terms of their tenancy or acceptable
  standards of behaviour
• Funded by Neighbourhood Renewal, Bristol City
  Council and the DCSF
• Funded to work with up to 24 families per year

3
Project Objectives

• Bristol Family Support Project aims to reduce
  anti social behaviour, address social exclusion
  and assist targeted families in maintaining their
  tenancies using a proactive, holistic approach
  through support and enforcement
• - Defining boundaries for acceptable behaviour,
  a clear process for formal enforcement action if
  necessary and support package within given
  timescale
• Effective multi agency support and partnership
  working at strategic and case level
• Successful and sustained engagement with targeted
  families utilising a flexible approach
• Recovery of community stability

4
The Process

• Referral to Family Support Project
  Key worker allocated
• Family Behaviour Contract agreed
• Referral to Barnardos for FGC
• FGC takes place
• Plan including Behaviour Contract agreed
• Implementation of Plan
• Monitoring of plan-weekly contact and plan
  nagging

5
What were the issues?

• Anti Social Behaviour-including verbal abuse,
  trespassing, racial abuse, intimidation,
  harassment, rowdy behaviour, assaults, under-age
  drinking, drug use or drug dealing,
  vehicle-related nuisance, graffiti, fire setting,
  criminal damage and vandalism
• Education issues-low attendance and achievement,
  exclusions, often little alternative education
  provision
• High levels of domestic violence, depression and
  drug/alcohol problems in referred families

6
Research methods included

• Outcomes based on 17 in depth analysis of
  families
• Mixture of qualitative and quantitative
  techniques
• Local partner agency focus groups
• Semi structured interviews with FSP staff, local
  agencies and service users
• Performance indicator data collection

7
Outcomes from first 18 months

• Prevention of eviction/homelessness in 100 of
  cases
• Overall complaints and incidents of ASB involving
  the families have reduced significantly.75
  reduction in police reported incidents during
  project intervention
• No legal action against either the familys
  tenancy or individuals has commenced whilst they
  have been involved with the project
• Agencies have been able to engage and support
  hard to reach targeted families that have a
  history of declining help and advice

8
Outcomes
9
Outcomes cont
10
Other outcomes

• Agencies and families reporting improved self
  esteem in young people involved
• Successful signposting and supporting access to
  other relevant services
• Impact of children and young people having their
  say with support of advocate
• Project gets commitment to multi agency
  working-agencies held accountable
• Improved care of properties-decorating, rubbish
  clearing etc
• Parents and kids smiling at each othernot just
  screaming and shouting

11
Family comments-

• Family A- reduction from 67 complaints to
  police in 6 months to 12 complaints in 6 months.
• My only other option was eviction so I had to
  get on board with the Project. The parenting
  classes were good because I met other parents and
  found I wasnt the only one who was having
  problems. It is quite intense, the support worker
  might be round your house three times in a
  week-its like having a mother in law that wont go
  away-but at the same time it is like an arm round
  your shoulder. Weve turned it around ( the
  family), we have cohesion and we work together as
  a unit now.

12
Parents comment-Family B

• The support plan that came out of the FGC catered
  for our support needs-there was nothing missed
  out. If the Project hadnt intervened I feel we
  would have lost the house and A could have ended
  up in court. The project made us aware of the
  impact our behaviour was having on the community.
  I didnt understand how bad it had got until you
  got involved

13
Agency comment

• I thought the FGC process was really good-an
  extremely effective way of encouraging the family
  to deal with their problems as a unit. Without it
  Social Services would still be involved. Great
  partnership working.

14
Costings

• Average unit cost per family for their six months
  engagement with the FSP project was 5,679
• FGC costs varied between 840 and 2200 with
  average cost 1700 (including Coordinator time,
  advocate where used, venue , refreshments, admin
  and management)
• Compared with-
• Estimated cost of an eviction is approx 3000
  (Shelter)
• Estimated police cost of dealing with
  Type1incident e.g. vandalism/harassment/criminal
  damage 400. Type 2 incident e.g.vehicle
  nuisance/noise etc average cost 204 (LSE, 2004)

15
Potential savings/cost effective?For 17
families subject to in depth analysis in March
2006-March 2008 there was a reduction of 499
police and housing dept reported incidents pre to
post intervention.That reduction alone, using
LSE 2004 lower figures of 204 per incident,
indicates a potential saving of over 100,000

16

• This presentation is based on data from
• Family Intervention Project research-dcsf.gov.uk
• Bristol FIP research commissioned by Office of
  the Deputy Prime Minister. Carried out by
  Sheffield Hallam University
• Neighbourhood Renewal evaluation of Bristol FSP
• Barnardos South West monitoring and evaluation
• hilary.horan_at_barnardo
  s.org.uk