Here at Researching Reform, we have always viewed The Troubled Families Programme with huge scepticism since its announcement in 2012, both for its shoddy methods (remember the bizarre 7 point checklist?), and its lack of transparency and now a damning report issued by the Public Accounts Committee confirms the worst.
The report says it can find no evidence of the programme actually helping families in need; that the programme overstated its success; the claimed saving of 1.2 billion was also overstated and that the department responsible for publishing the programme’s evaluation was ‘evasive’ when asked to explain the delay in publishing this evaluation.
More worrying still is the revelation that financial incentives continue to drive highly sensitive programmes likes these – the ‘payment by results’ scheme used by the Troubled Families Programme led to some councils trying to move families quickly through the programme at the expense of genuine support.
The committee is not the first to point these failings out. Back in February of this year, a social worker on the front line of the programme felt so strongly about the unethical way in which the programme was being run that she spoke out. Many of the findings the Committee make in their report mirror hers exactly.
And if you thought the government was embarrassed about its pay by results scheme, you’d be wrong. Eric Pickles, then Communities Secretary, announced this initiative back in 2012 , and specifically mentions the financial incentives on offer. This is what he told The Independent in an exclusive interview:
Also interesting to read is Committee Chair Meg Hillier MP’s statement on the findings:
“Government officials might be inclined to consider our comments on the delay in publishing its Troubled Families evaluation as a slap on the wrist about Whitehall bureaucracy.
Let me assure them that given the ambitions for this programme, the implications for families and the significant sums of money invested, it is far more serious than that.
But it is particularly important with a new initiative that there is transparency so that the Government can learn and adapt the programme.
The Department has undermined any achievements the Government might legitimately claim for its overall work in this area.
In particular it was a mistake to use short-term criteria as the measure for successfully ‘turning around’ families, many of whom are grappling with long-term social problems.
A tick in a box to meet a Prime Ministerial target is no substitute for a lasting solution to difficulties that may take years to properly address.
We would also question the suitability of the Government’s ‘payment by results’ model, which similarly risks incentivising quantity over quality.
The Department has now committed to providing Parliament with an annual report on progress with the Troubled Families programme, starting in March next year.
For this to be meaningful Government must be far clearer about the benefits that can be directly attributed to the public investment in it.
Only then can Parliament and others properly assess the value for money of this programme and its merits as a model to bring about lasting change in the lives of those families it is intended to support.”
Everything about this Programme was wrong – from the language used at its inception, to the way councils were lured to the scheme through cash for results, it was a terrible deception, at the expense of the most vulnerable.
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
Young lives for sale presents a sad, sorry and sordid picture however well-meaning the proposals appear to be.
LikeLike
Young lives for sale is a sad, sorry and sordid proposition however well meant the proposals.
LikeLike
I get the feeling that these 152 ‘top level’ local authorities are the ones who provided child ‘protection’ as a ‘service’. The remaining 302 don’t, it seems. I shall publish this list next.
The government publishes statistics about ‘looked after’ children on https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/statistics-looked-after-children
in terms of rising trends, I compiled this 8-page report from the data:
Click to access 16-11-30-children-in-care.pdf
LikeLike
i think a lot of these so-called help courses are just a smoke screen to set up more money making rackets for the people in the know.
when there is Billions of £s going into the tax payer pot its obvious there will be many sharp eyed schemers looking at how they can get a nice slice of that big tastey pie.
other similar programs are Wwin, whoopes child safety and the positive parenting programs. there are some positives to these groups but unfortunately the parents are being fed false hope if they think they have a chance of getting their kids back if they complete these courses. the truth is the family courts and local Authorities are not interested if you have done them or not. this begs the big Question, why are they offering parents to do these courses when they know it wont help them get their kids back.
LikeLike
Pingback: Government Has Been Using Big Data For Years To Predict Child Abuse | Researching Reform
Pingback: Government Revives Infamous Troubled Families Programme In £39 Million Scheme | Researching Reform