Hundreds of troubled families across county to get extra help

Daily Echo: Keith Mans Keith Mans

SOME of Hampshire’s most troubled families are to share in a multimillion pound scheme to turn their lives around.

County chiefs are set to introduce tailored plans and one-toone support for 1,590 troubled families across the county.

The aim is to break a cycle of living on benefits, low educational achievement and anti-social behaviour which can span generations.

The Government has promised to pay local authorities up to £4,000 per family for reducing truancy, cutting crime or getting parents back to work.

Ministers say 120,000 problem families in England cost taxpayers £9 billion each year and want to turn these around by 2015.

The county council’s Cabinet will this Monday be asked to approve a strategy and funding for the scheme.

Hampshire has been promised a three-year £5.3m pot of government money with payment by results for 40 per cent of it.

In addition, the county has agreed to contribute £900,000.

Under the government programme, the county will lead various agencies dealing with these families in an effort to join up services, including social services, housing departments, schools, doctors, police and probation officials.

The aim is to deal with interlinked issues of a whole family, rather than individual members or single problems.

For each family a single plan will be developed with the emphasis on early help and prevention.

An estimated 495 of the most dysfunctional families could get visits from a key worker every day.

The council plans to go out to tender for private companies to provide intensive family support at an estimated cost of £3.3m a year, starting in April 2013.

A report to Cabinet said this should save the public purse in the long-term with fewer children taken into care, housing evictions or prison sentences.

The report said: “A key aim is to stem the tide of families requiring more complex and costly statutory interventions alongside improving outcomes for those families and their children.”

Meanwhile support for the other 1,095 families may simply involve better co-ordination and targeting of existing services.

The county has set up a multiagency partnership board to oversee the programme chaired by Councillor Keith Mans, executive member for communities and international affairs.

The progress of each family will be tracked.

In addition, there are local coordination groups in each district council area to identify troubled families and draw-up tailored plans.

Government funding for problem families depends on them meeting two out of three criteria: involvement in crime or antisocial behaviour, children truanting from school and unemployed.

However families facing other issues such as domestic violence, drug or alcohol abuse and mental illness could also be helped with cash contributed by the county and other partners.

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:04pm Fri 26 Oct 12

Taskforce 141 says...

Just stop their bloody benefits until they start acting like civilised citizens, they will soon learn or starve or die of Hyperthermia - Win, Win, Win!
Just stop their bloody benefits until they start acting like civilised citizens, they will soon learn or starve or die of Hyperthermia - Win, Win, Win! Taskforce 141
  • Score: 0

1:07pm Fri 26 Oct 12

Subject48 says...

wow!

taskfroce141 well said!!!!
wow! taskfroce141 well said!!!! Subject48
  • Score: 0

7:50pm Fri 26 Oct 12

mickey01 says...

why is it that these so called under valued families seem to be able to afford to smoke drink own a computer and still not find a job . i am fed up with these do gooders throwning my earned money at these low life users
why is it that these so called under valued families seem to be able to afford to smoke drink own a computer and still not find a job . i am fed up with these do gooders throwning my earned money at these low life users mickey01
  • Score: 0

8:53pm Fri 26 Oct 12

IronLady2010 says...

The answer is not to throw more money at them, but rather, take away their money so they have to work.

I can't see how a household can afford to live on benefits and still drink and smoke. Maybe the benefits are too high and need reducing.

Maybe stop the cash payments and give food vouchers instead, you'll soon see many get a job.
The answer is not to throw more money at them, but rather, take away their money so they have to work. I can't see how a household can afford to live on benefits and still drink and smoke. Maybe the benefits are too high and need reducing. Maybe stop the cash payments and give food vouchers instead, you'll soon see many get a job. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

9:48pm Fri 26 Oct 12

cantthinkofone says...

The commenters above make me sick with their bleeding-heart liberal hand-wringing. If we're going to spend this money on anything, it should be a purpose-built arena in the town centre where these problem families could be publicly flogged. After receiving their punishment they should have 'defective' tattooed on their foreheads so that the silent majority would know to steer clear of them.

But those local government parasites will never allow common-sense schemes like that. They'd probably say it infringes their 'human rights' or some other Euro-nonsense.

This country's going to he11 in a handbasket.
The commenters above make me sick with their bleeding-heart liberal hand-wringing. If we're going to spend this money on anything, it should be a purpose-built arena in the town centre where these problem families could be publicly flogged. After receiving their punishment they should have 'defective' tattooed on their foreheads so that the silent majority would know to steer clear of them. But those local government parasites will never allow common-sense schemes like that. They'd probably say it infringes their 'human rights' or some other Euro-nonsense. This country's going to he11 in a handbasket. cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

10:11pm Fri 26 Oct 12

angus mc coatup says...

why do we never see a headline of

£5.3 million to be spent on decent, law abiding, working families.that might encourage better behavour from the so called "problem families".
why do we never see a headline of £5.3 million to be spent on decent, law abiding, working families.that might encourage better behavour from the so called "problem families". angus mc coatup
  • Score: 0

10:18pm Fri 26 Oct 12

befriendly says...

Common sense has never been a requisite for being a politician and the general rule of being a politician is; if we have a problem throw money at it to make it look as if we're doing something. Years ago the council near where I used to live moved all their problem families into one road to get a dose of their own medicine and they suddenly became somewhat slightly better and the residents where they used to live had much better lives. If you've limited funds you soon learn to spend it wisely and to get a job to have more.
Common sense has never been a requisite for being a politician and the general rule of being a politician is; if we have a problem throw money at it to make it look as if we're doing something. Years ago the council near where I used to live moved all their problem families into one road to get a dose of their own medicine and they suddenly became somewhat slightly better and the residents where they used to live had much better lives. If you've limited funds you soon learn to spend it wisely and to get a job to have more. befriendly
  • Score: 0

11:08pm Fri 26 Oct 12

skin2000 says...

angus mc coatup wrote:
why do we never see a headline of

£5.3 million to be spent on decent, law abiding, working families.that might encourage better behavour from the so called "problem families".
Good idea, but will never happen, this rewards anti social behavior.....strange idea.
[quote][p][bold]angus mc coatup[/bold] wrote: why do we never see a headline of £5.3 million to be spent on decent, law abiding, working families.that might encourage better behavour from the so called "problem families".[/p][/quote]Good idea, but will never happen, this rewards anti social behavior.....strange idea. skin2000
  • Score: 0

4:55pm Sat 27 Oct 12

Snowman says...

. Good idea befriendly. What troubles me is . they say no money for elderly and closing of "Special Needs " schools but have money for this !! pfft !!
. Good idea befriendly. What troubles me is . they say no money for elderly and closing of "Special Needs " schools but have money for this !! pfft !! Snowman
  • Score: 0

5:19pm Sat 27 Oct 12

cantthinkofone says...

All conveniently ignoring this:

"The report said: “A key aim is to stem the tide of families requiring more complex and costly statutory interventions alongside..."

The idea is to spend money on prevention, thus SAVING a greater sum of money that is currently being spent on mopping up the mess.

It's really not that hard a concept to get your head around.
All conveniently ignoring this: "The report said: “A key aim is to stem the tide of families requiring more complex and costly statutory interventions alongside..." The idea is to spend money on prevention, thus SAVING a greater sum of money that is currently being spent on mopping up the mess. It's really not that hard a concept to get your head around. cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

6:58pm Sat 27 Oct 12

cantthinkofone says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
The answer is not to throw more money at them, but rather, take away their money so they have to work.

I can't see how a household can afford to live on benefits and still drink and smoke. Maybe the benefits are too high and need reducing.

Maybe stop the cash payments and give food vouchers instead, you'll soon see many get a job.
I think the supermarkets should be forced to introduce special provisions for benefit claimants.

There should be special "benefit claimant only" supermarket aisles where those on benefits could only choose from a small selection of extremely basic necessities, all in the same brown paper wrapping with "BENEFIT CLAIMANT" written on the sides in big stencilled letters.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: The answer is not to throw more money at them, but rather, take away their money so they have to work. I can't see how a household can afford to live on benefits and still drink and smoke. Maybe the benefits are too high and need reducing. Maybe stop the cash payments and give food vouchers instead, you'll soon see many get a job.[/p][/quote]I think the supermarkets should be forced to introduce special provisions for benefit claimants. There should be special "benefit claimant only" supermarket aisles where those on benefits could only choose from a small selection of extremely basic necessities, all in the same brown paper wrapping with "BENEFIT CLAIMANT" written on the sides in big stencilled letters. cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree