19
Family Support Hubs Report Card Annual Report Card 2017/18 May 2018
Family Support Hubs Report Card
Annual Report Card 2017/18
May 2018
How much did we do? 1
Performance
Measure 1:
As at April
2018, 29
hubs were
fully
operational
in Northern
Ireland
How much did we do?
Performance Measure 2: No of Families, Children & Parents Referred through Family Support Hubs – 2017/18
2
In 2017/18 there were 604 more families referred through family support hubs than in 2016/17, almost a 10% increase.
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Families 1748 1454 1729 1750
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Nu
mb
er
Number of Families Referred - 2017/18
2635
4522
6077 6681
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
Nu
mb
er
No. of Families Referred - 2014/15 to 2017/18
3219
5335
7651
8558
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
No. of Children (2014/15 to 2017/18)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Children 2070 1895 2326 2267
0
1000
2000
3000
Nu
mb
er
Number of Children Referred - 2017/18
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Parents 1122 923 1129 1126
0400800
1200
Nu
mb
er
Number of Parents Referred - 2017/18
2514
3602
4499 4300
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
No. of Parents (2014/15 to 2017/18)
How much did we do?
Performance Measure 3: Children referred by age profile - 2017/18
5-10 years has consistently been the highest age group for referrals in 2017/18.
3
0-4 5-10 11-15 16+Parent
under 18years
Q1 472 867 602 124 5
Q2 514 809 463 105 4
Q3 612 962 580 152 20
Q4 578 971 586 131 1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Nu
mb
er
2176
3609
2231
512 30
0500
1000150020002500300035004000
0-4 5-10 11-15 16+ Parentunder 18
years
Nu
mb
er
26%
42%
26%
6%
Age Profile 2017/18
0-4
5-10
11-15
16+
How much did we do cont’d….?
Performance Measure 4
Referrals by Ethnic
Background for Children
and Parents referred
through Family Support
Hub’s.
(Note: ‘White’ has the higher
number of referrals for both
Child/ren and Parents and
are presented on separate
scales as shown in these
charts.)
Child/Children referrals by ethnic background – 2017/18
Parent/Parents referrals by ethnic background – 2017/18
4
White
White
Total 7608
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
White 202
164 141
128 112
69 58 31 25
10 5 5 0
50
100
150
200
250
White
Total 3722
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
116 101 96
83 81
45
24 21 4 3 2 2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
How much did we do cont’d….?
Performance Measure 4: Children with a disability referred -2017/18
Children with a learning disability had the highest number of disability referrals .
5
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Physical 54 48 69 67
Learning 123 120 132 150
Sensory 106 70 57 54
Autism (includingAsperger Syndrome)
58 88 120 108
ADHD/ADD 9 52 40 46
Other (e.g.Acquired BrainInjury)
12 26 28 20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160N
um
be
r
Please note: Figures are low in Q1 as the three new disability categories did not come into operation fully until Q2.
1657
8558
Total Childrenwith a Disability
Total ChildrenReferred throughHubs
(19%)
Physical Learning Sensory
Autism(includin
gAspergerSyndrom
e)
ADHD/ADD
Other(e.g.Acqu
iredBrain
Injury)
Total 238 525 287 374 147 86
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Nu
mb
er
How much did we do cont’d….?
Performance Measure 5: Household Composition -2017/18
The highest group of families referred are Lone Parents with an increase from 3165 in 2016/17 to 3261 in 2017/18. Home with both parents has increased from 2523 to 2959 and One Parent + Partner has slightly increased from 342 to 351 in 2017/18. There has also been an increase in Guardians from 45 to 50 and Kinship Carers from 34 to 44.
6
Home (bothparents)
Home (oneparent)
Home (oneparent +partner)
GuardianKinshipCarer/s
Not disclosed
Q1 787 841 77 14 11 41
Q2 657 693 82 12 9 17
Q3 698 907 91 12 9 37
Q4 817 820 101 12 15 7
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Nu
mb
er
How much did we do cont’d….?
Performance Measure 6: Main Presenting Reasons for Referral - 2017/18
Reasons for Referral: Consistently Emotional Behavioural Difficulty (EBD) for primary school age children has been the main presenting reason for referral. From 2016/17 there has been an increase from 1396 to 1844 in 2017/18. Requests for Parenting Programmes /support rose from 986 in 2016/17 to 1215 in 2017/18. In 2017/18 there has also been a growth in the number of post primary children referred for emotional behavioural support, with 951 compared to 820 referred last year. As hubs become established in local communities greater numbers of referrals are being presented for EBD Support for Parents, Counselling Services for Children/Young People and One to One Support for Young People.
7
EBDsupport
forprimaryschool
children
Parentingprogrammes/pare
ntingsupport
EBDsupportfor postprimaryschool
children
EBDsupport
forparents
Counselling
servicesfor
children/youngpeople
One toone
supportfor young
people
EBDsupportfor pre-school
children
Youthactivities/Support
Child caresupport
Q1 470 298 293 187 140 133 118 113 86
Q2 415 278 170 119 131 92 133 76 82
Q3 451 272 207 155 124 121 86 103 67
Q4 508 367 281 136 172 149 139 93 90
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Nu
mb
er
How well did we do it ….?
Performance Measure 7: Families Referred that were Accepted & Signposted, Inappropriate Referral or Not Accepted for Other Reasons
Performance Measure 8: Referral Process: Achieved in 4 weeks & 5-8 weeks or Not Achieved – 2017/18
The vast majority of referrals to Hubs were processed within 4 weeks. A further significant number within 5- 8 weeks and of the remaining referrals only 12 exceeded the maximum 8 weeks timescale. This ensures families receive a timely response to their immediate needs from the Hub Co-ordinator.
8
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total
Familes Referred 1748 1454 1729 1750 6681
Accepted and Signposted 1458 1206 1482 1432 5578
Signposted but family did not engage 68 62 50 55 235
Above Tier 2 (Inappropriate Referral) 114 75 107 117 413
Further Information Required 113 117 95 150 475
Unable to meet needs of referred family 18 10 30 18 76
010002000300040005000600070008000
Tota
l Nu
mb
er
of
Fam
ilie
s
Families Referred that were 'Accepted & Signposted' - (2017/18)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Achieved in 4 wks & 5-8 wks 1660 1405 1676 1657
Achieved in 8 Wks+ 3 0 3 6
Not Achieved in Timescale 56 36 41 37
0200400600800
10001200140016001800
Nu
mb
er
How well did we do it cont’d……?
Performance Measure 8: Total Percentage of Referrals by Referral Agency – 2017/18
In 2017/18 self-referrals were the key referrer at 18%, the same as 2016/17. Referrals to GP’s have now increased to 13% compared to 11% in 2016/17, with Paediatrician at 11% and Schools at 10% in 2017/18. Health Visitor referrals have decreased slightly in 2017/18 to 9% from 10% in 2016/17. Gateway referrals have decreased from being the largest referring agency in 2015/16 at 14% to 8% in 2017/18 and also 2016/17.
9
2017/18
18%
13%
11%
10% 9%
8%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2% 2%
2% 1%
1% 1%
How well did we do it cont’d…….?
Performance Measure 9: Number of Parents /Children referred who did and who did not take up the service offer – 2017/18
10
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Number of children/ parent referred onwho took up the service offer
1439 1355 1350 1169
Number of children/ parent referred onwho did not take up the service offer
88 117 96 114
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Nu
mb
er
Performance Measure 10: 10 Standards 97% Fully Implemented 3% Partially Implemented - 2017/18
How well did we do it cont’d……
Standard 1. Working in PARTNERSHIP is an integral part of Family Support. Partnership includes children, families, professionals and communities
Standard 2. Family Support Interventions are NEEDS LED (and provide the minimum intervention required)
Standard 3. Family Support requires a clear focus on the WISHES, FEELINGS, SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN
Standard 4. Family Support services reflect a STRENGTHS BASED perspective, which is mindful of resilience as a characteristic of many children and families lives
Standard 5. Family Support is ACCESSIBLE AND FLEXIBLE in respect of location, timing, setting and changing needs, and can incorporate both child protection and out of home care
Standard 6. Family Support promotes the view that effective interventions are those that STRENGTHEN INFORMAL SUPPORT NETWORKS
Standard 7. Families are encouraged to self-refer and MULTI-AGENCY REFERRAL PATHS are facilitated
Standard 8. INVOLVEMENT OF SERVICE USERS AND PROVIDERS IN THE PLANNING, DELIVERY AND EVALUATION of family support services in practised on an on-going basis
Standard 9. Services aim to PROMOTE SOCIAL INCLUSION and address issues around ethnicity, disability and urban/rural communities
Standard 10. MEASURES OF SUCCESS are built into services to demonstrate that interventions result in improved outcomes for service users, and facilitate quality assurance and best practice
11
All Hubs are expected to administer the self assessment tool based on the 10 Standards and to develop an Action Plan which is reviewed on a 6 monthly basis.
97%
3%
Hub Standards
Fully Implemented Partially Implemented
Is anyone better off? 12
Core Members Survey 2017/18 : Every year CYPSP conduct a Core Members Survey. 680 members were contacted and 203 responded = a response rate of 30%. These are the key findings : The data has shown Hub members who responded to the survey believe : • there is an increased focus on early intervention in local areas to 97% up by 2%
since the survey was completed in 2016/17. • there is an increased use of resources available in local areas up by 1% to 94%
since the survey was completed in 2016/17. • there is an increased demand on their agencies to 63% up by 4% since the survey
was completed in 2016/17. • there is an increase in the number of organisations who the Hubs have helped to
identify service gaps in their local area of 2% to 94% since the survey was completed in 2016/17.
.
Is anyone better off … cont’d 13
Core Members Survey: 94% of member organisations of Family Support Hubs who responded to the survey believe families are provided with a more holistic approach to meeting their needs. They also have reported improved information sharing, communication and trust across organisations over the last year. In 2016/17, 93% of core members reported improved information sharing, communication and trust. This has increased by 1% to 94% since the survey was completed last year. The data has shown that member organisations believe there is an increased likelihood of improved outcomes for children and families by 4% to 98% since the last survey.
Is anyone better off … cont’d 14
Core Members Survey : Quotes from Core Members “I believe strongly in the Family Support Hub Network. It has played a pivotal part in delivering services to those I work with and indeed beyond. Furthermore, it is a great hub to connect with other professionals, develop knowledge and discuss emerging needs.” “The Hubs have the potential to be an excellent vehicle. They are well established now and the method of working has been set up. It is now time to use this opportunity to invest in a far greater level of support around families, especially those who are vulnerable of yo-yo-ing in and out of social services.” Overall the feedback from member organisations about the Family Support Hubs has been very positive. In fact there has been a positive percentage increase in the majority of the questions about the impact of Family Support Hubs and in particular in reduction in duplication of services, personal satisfaction in providing services to families within a wider network and the focus on early intervention and prevention as well as the Hubs ability to identify gaps in services.
Is anyone better off … cont’d 15
Feedback from Parents : each Hub provides CYPSP with 8 case studies per year about the families that have been referred. This is a selection of these: Case Study A A lone mother with a learning disability and her 14 year old daughter were referred to the Family Support Hub by her GP as she was lonely and isolated. The Hub arranged for weekly visits from a Family Support worker who provided emotional support and has signposted her to other services including the food bank and counselling. The Family Support Worker advised the parent on behaviour/management strategies and she now attends a women’s group in her area. She has also received assistance around benefit claims. The Hub co-ordinator referred the young girl to the local Youth Centre and a worker there now sees the teenager once a week and offers her support and mentoring. Case Study B
A couple with a baby were referred to the Hub by the Gateway Team. The parents were seeking support as their baby was born with a syndrome which meant he had severe medical and physical difficulties. The family were not aware of what supports were available at a difficult time for them as a family and there was an uncertain prognosis. The family were referred to a specialist organisation that supports families whose children have complex needs and they were able to connect them with a family whose son had the same condition. They received specialist day-care and some support from their local Surestart. A Trust social worker was also allocated to them. The family were very positive about the services that were put in place for them.
Is anyone better off… cont’d
Case Study C A lone parent family with 3 children were referred to the Hub by the Housing Executive. The Family had been evicted from private rented accommodation and moved in with a relative temporarily. This arrangement broke down and the family were placed in emergency accommodation quite a distance away from where they had previously lived and from the school the children attended. Mother required parenting support around behavioural management. She was under emotional strain with the stresses of house changes and the children began exhibiting behavioural difficulties. The Hub Co-ordinator arranged help with transport for the children to and from school . A number of home based sessions were completed with mum around setting rules and boundaries within the home and she was supported to help the children to settle into the new area and with membership of the youth club. A Family Group Conference was arranged with the family. Outcomes for the family; mum feeling better able to cope at home; wider family communicating again; children feeling happier at home; children and mum accepted into new area that was of a different religious persuasion and support implemented in school to help children maintain their places.
16
Family Samples 2017/18
129 family sample questionnaires
completed
Self R
eferra
lGPs
Gateway
Schoo
l
Health
Visi
tor
25
20
15
10
5
0
82 single Mothers 3 single Fathers
44 - 2 Parent Families
85 - 1 Parent Families
Referring Agency
162 Children
Family SupportBehavioural Issues
Family TraumaChildcare / Health Visiting
Counselling SupportFamily Breakdown
BereavementStress Management
44% 26% 16% 14%
Parents
36% 19% 17% 12% 9% 7%
Children
114 were signposted to 87 services
162 were signposted to 151 services
114 Parents
Signposted to
87 services
162 Children
Signposted to
151 services
30
14109
744
22Reason for
Referral% of all Children
6
9
220
8
Total number of Children referred by
Disability
Signposted Services
Emotional Support
Behaviour/Boundaries
Parenting SupportParenting Programmes
Financial SupportHousing
AnxietyDomestic Violence
Sexual Abuse
Challenging BehaviourSchool Attendance
Offending
120 parents received written information and an explanation about the FSH
4 weeks from referral to hub achieved Outcomes of Service Intervention
117
12
Parent suggested follow ups as it seems a shame for relationships to be formed and ending quickly.
A mother suggested that the service be available to all of the boys together. This would have
worked better for her.
The service I am engaged with is 12 weeks and I'm concerned
about the time limit.
If the case is not to be taken on by Social Services, then contact from either the hub or Social Services to explain the reason for this would be
useful.
Checklists would benefit from examples of what could be offered.
Recommendations
114 parent/child found intervention had a positive outcome
121 parents found the process of engaging with a Hub worked well
112 parent/child did not need referral to statutory Social Services
51% Completed Programme
3% Did not Engage
46% Ongoing
Longer term family support
Additional support for Autism
Befriending for mum with disability
Local after service mentoring / counselling
Local parenting programme
Not in catchment area for SureStart
Local funded Youth Services / Activities
Support for young people LGBT
issues
Appropriate housing
Transition support for teenager with
disability
BME Support
21 parents said there were other services they would have liked to avail off
