Croydon Family Power - Evaluation Report

1

May 2015

2

Contents

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................... 4

1.1 Project Overview ........................................................................................................ 4

1.2 Report Structure ......................................................................................................... 4

2.0 Profile of the Families Supported ......................................................... 8

2.1 Identifying and Referring Families ............................................................................ 9

3.0 Lessons Learned from Project Delivery . Error! Bookmark not defined.2

3.1 Family Navigators .................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) .................................................... 14

3.3 Evidence-Based Programmes ................................................................................. 16

3.4 Working with Partners ............................................................................................. 17

3.5 Challenges and Lessons Learned .......................................................................... 18

4.0 Project Achievements and Sustainability .......................................... 20

4.1 Project Outputs ........................................................................................................ 20

4.2 Project Outcomes ..................................................................................................... 20

4.3 Sustainability ............................................................................................................ 26

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................. 28

5.1 Concluding Thoughts .............................................................................................. 28

5.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 29

Foreword and acknowledgements

This report has been prepared by Ecorys, on behalf of the Croydon Family Power project, as part of the

National Evaluation of the Improving Futures Programme (2011-16).

The views expressed are those of the independent evaluators, based on a review of the available

evidence, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the project or the Big Lottery Fund.

Ecorys would like to thank the staff and families at Croydon Family Power for actively participating in the

national evaluation, and for organising and hosting the visits that were carried out by the evaluation team.

This report would not have been possible without their support.

May 2015

3

INDEPENDENT EVALUATION REPORT

1.0 Introduction

4


1.0 Introduction

The Improving Futures programme was launched by the Big Lottery Fund (The Fund) in March 2011. The

£26 million programme provided up to £900,000 to 26 pilot projects across the UK, to test different Voluntary

and Community Sector (VCS) led approaches towards achieving the following outcomes:

Improved outcomes for children in families with multiple and complex needs.

New approaches to local delivery, demonstrating replicable models which lead to more effective,

tailored and joined up support for families with multiple and complex needs.

Improved learning and sharing of best practice between public services and VCS organisations.

In October 2011, Big Lottery Fund awarded an evaluation and learning contract to a consortium led by

Ecorys UK with Ipsos MORI, the University of Nottingham and Family Lives. The evaluation is funded over

five years, to assess programme effectiveness and impact, alongside continuous dissemination. Further

information on the national evaluation can be found on the website:

This report presents the evaluation findings for the Croydon Family Power project. The findings are based

on an analysis of the evidence from qualitative interviews conducted at an initial visit in December 2011,

and at a more in-depth follow-up visit in December 2014; outcomes data entered by project staff using the

Improving Futures Monitoring Information System (IFMIS), and project self-evaluation materials.

1.1 Project Overview

Launched in May 2012, the Croydon Family Power (CFP) project was awarded grant funding over three

years from the Big Lottery Fund as part of the Improving Futures Programme, with the aim of transforming

the lives of ‘just coping’ families in Croydon where the eldest child is between 5 and 10 years old1. At the time

of writing, in May 2015, the project has received confirmation of additional grant funding from Big Lottery

Fund to extend project activities by an additional 11 months until March 2016.

The intended outcomes from the project included:

a. Helping families to support each other by growing the natural strengths of communities

b. Working with children to grow empathy, increase emotional resilience and reduce violence

c. Helping families to get the support they need at the time they need it, to avoid getting things worse;

and,

d. Helping parents to learn the skills and emotional resilience to parent more effectively.

The project was led by Croydon Voluntary Action (CVA) – a third sector infrastructure organisation based

within the borough, in partnership with a range of public, independent and third sector organisations and with

endorsement from the Director of Children’s Services. Table 1.1 provides a full list of the original partners.

Table 1.1 Partner Organisations

1. Croydon Council

2. Croydon Drop-In

3. Mencap

4. Disability Croydon

5. Gingerbread Corner

6. Home-Start Croydon

7. MIND in Croydon Nurture Development

8. Off the Record – Youth Counselling

9. Pre-School Learning Alliance

10. Roots of Empathy

11. Wave Trust

1 In March 2015, CVA were successful in applying to Big Lottery Fund for a further £180,000 to extend the project for a further year until March 2016.

5


Of this list, the Pre-School Learning Alliance are the lead organisation for the Improving Futures project in

Lewisham, with whom a collaborative arrangement was established from the start as both projects aimed to

implement Roots of Empathy. They were jointly supported by the Canadian Roots of Empathy team.

1.1.1 Key Project Activities

The project was ambitious in its vision from the outset; combining both ‘targeted’ and ‘universal’ provision to

engage and support individual families before their problems escalate, and to strengthen the networks and

resources that are available to families at a local level. The project also aimed to develop a new ‘evidence

base’ – drawing upon validated programmes for building child empathy, developing parenting capacities and

strengthening families’ resilience, and testing them as part of a new cooperative model in Croydon.

The project was organised around three main strands, with an original aim of reaching over 3,000 families

collectively through the project as a whole. These strands included:

1. Family support and advocacy – tailored one-to-one support for around 300 families, provided by a

designated key worker / advocate. These ‘Family Navigators’ were recruited and hosted by six delivery

partners, each of whom offer a range of issue-based support (e.g. mental health, disabilities,

counselling) as well as serving defined geographical target areas within the borough.

2. Community development - using Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) - a wealth-based

model, which aims to strengthen local social networks and to connect families with assets that are

already available within the community but are under-utilized, and to identify and respond to any

additional support needs that emerge from the asset mapping process. The project aimed to recruit

and train 60 Community Connectors to set-up ABCD projects within three priority localities.

3. Evidence-based programmes – testing and comparing two evidence-based programmes - Incredible

Years, which is an internationally recognised model of child development, and Just What We Need:

Parent Pods, which is a locally developed model based on a ‘'Human Givens' model. The project also

set out to transfer and pilot the Roots of Empathy model in Croydon schools – a classroom-based

programme that was developed in Canada to develop empathy skills amongst school pupils.

The project included two flexible elements: a “pay-as-you-go” funding pot, enabling Family Navigators to

purchase any support that is needed for individual families to participate in the project, or to overcome

practical barriers, and “matching grants”, which were implemented through the ABCD community

development work, to help implement the projects that are designed by local communities.

The project was informed by an extensive consultation with children and families within the borough, prior to

the funding application. This exercise identified the importance of social networks to families in sustaining

their emotional health and wellbeing, and the extent to which children expressed a need to feel safe and

secure within their local area. The project was also informed by the work undertaken through the earlier ‘Total

Place Pilot’ in Croydon (Child:Family:Place), which played an important role in shifting service delivery

towards a more family-centred approach and strengthened the role of VCOs within service commissioning.

6


1.2 Report Structure

The remainder of this report is structured as follows:

Chapter Two gives a profile of the families supported, drawing upon both the monitoring data and

practitioners’ accounts of the main presenting issues for families, including risks and strengths.

Chapter Three reviews the main lessons learned from project delivery. The chapter starts by

examining the key learning points from each strand of the project in turn, before going on to consider

the overall messages in terms of partnership working, challenges and how these were overcome.

Chapter Four considers the main achievements of the project, including the type of outcomes that

were recorded and reported and the strength of this evidence, and assesses the extent to which these

outcomes have been sustainable. It also considers sustainability in the context of the wider project.

Chapter Five draws the report to a close, with a set of overall conclusions and a number of

recommendations for the project partners to consider in potentially developing the model further.

7


2.0 Profile of the Families

Supported

8


2.0 Profile of the Families Supported

The target groups for Croydon Family Power closely reflected the eligibility criteria for the Improving Futures

Programme. Support was aimed at families in Croydon where the eldest child is between 5 and 10 years.

Within this over-arching definition, the project incorporated:

targeted provision - delivered through the Family Navigators and the parenting programmes, with the

aim of improving outcomes for ‘just coping’ families who were assessed as being at Level 2 (vulnerable)

or Level 3 or (complex) on the continuum of need2.

universal provision - delivered through Roots of Empathy and ABCD aimed to link the project into a

much wider support network, by engaging whole classes of children (Roots of Empathy) and whole

communities (ABCD community development model).

Close links were established with the local authority from the outset to ensure that the project was located

within the wider local strategic framework for children’s services in Croydon. Project staff felt that designing

the provision in this way was important because it provided a focal point for engaging with statutory partners,

and increased the potential for mainstreaming at the end of the grant period. A role was identified for the

project in complementing the Early Intervention and Family Support Service, and addressing a shortfall in

capacity for families not reaching the threshold of the Family Resilience Service at Level 4 (acute).

The IFMIS data and the interviews provide insights to the families who were engaged through the targeted

provision. Much as expected, the families referred to the project had a multitude of needs and reflected the

social and cultural diversity of families within Croydon. As the IFMIS data further illustrates, of the 252

families for whom baseline data was recorded within the system (at May 2015):

Two thirds (66%) were lone parent families

Just over three quarters (77%) of adult beneficiaries were female

The largest ethnic group for adult family members was White British (25%), followed by Black or Black

British – African (6%) and Black or Black British – Caribbean (also 6%)

The largest ethnic group for child family members was White British (40%), followed by Black or Black

British – African (12%)

Around half (51%) of the children supported were aged between 5 and 9 years old; and,

Just over half (54%) of child beneficiaries were male

The case study visit also provided an opportunity to explore these issues qualitatively with project staff and to

gain their insights to the families supported by the project. Table 2.1 highlights some of the main themes:

Table 2.3 Croydon Family Power – common themes identified by project staff

'Hidden issues or needs' – project staff identified that it was common for families to disclose issues part way into

receiving support; after the project worker had gained their trust. In some instances, these issues required a re-

assessment of the level of need (e.g. Domestic Abuse).

'Family finances' – families not being able to access affordable credit; rent arrears and debt problems, benefits

miscalculations, and low levels of financial capability were reported to have been very widespread. Again, these

issues were not always known at the point of referral.

'Mental health and wellbeing' - some of the partner agencies were found to have referred families where there are

clear mental health issues; in some cases warranting specialist therapeutic inputs.

‘Transiency’ - particular challenges were also identified in terms of families with a transient housing situation. This

was either as a result of being relocated when accommodation became available or living in temporary

accommodation. This was often found to have placed additional stress on family members.

2 Croydon Safeguarding Children Board (2014) Early Help Pathways: Operational Guidance.

9


As the above points serve to illustrate, project staff felt that the families often had more complex needs than

was anticipated at the outset of the programme, which had implications for the range of expertise that was

required and the typical duration of support. The ability to access high quality centralised clinical supervision

was particularly valued by the project staff:

"They [the Family Navigators] are definitely getting higher than Level 2 referrals… quite complex

issues within families. So they have needed more support and clinical supervision than was

[originally anticipated]."

(Service Manager)

Project workers reported some difficulties where families were referred who fell outside of the criteria for the

targeted provision. This was particularly the case in relation to the age criteria, with project staff reporting a

need for greater flexibility to work with families where there is an older child. It was not uncommon for parents

supported by the service to have a child from a previous relationship, where the family might also include

younger siblings within the 5 to 10 years age range.

2.1 Identifying and Referring Families

The referral strategy underwent considerable development following the project launch in May 2012. The

Croydon Referrals, Information and Support Services (CRISS) service was originally identified as the main

referral point for the targeted provision. The CRISS was established as a multi-agency ‘front door’ for all

incoming contacts to children’s services in the borough, providing an opportunity to establish Croydon Family

Power as one of the main referral options for Level 2 / 3 families. The project aimed to secure 200 family

referrals via the CRISS, and to top this up with partner referrals, and self-referrals.

This strategy was dealt a blow when the CRISS was disbanded in 2013 following a period of local authority

restructuring in the borough. The project responded by redoubling their efforts to link with primary

schools as an alternative source of referrals. Mixed success was reported from this approach. Although the

project was considered to have been successful in raising its profile across the borough, referral numbers

were affected by staff turnover and restructuring within individual schools. The reliance on schools was also

thought to have skewed the profile of the families, with a higher proportion of referrals made on the basis of

persistent absence from school, reflecting the fact that pupil attendance is a key priority for most schools.

Project staff identified that the volumes of self-referrals gradually increased as the Family Navigators became

more established and families heard about the project through word of mouth. The host organisations were

also pro-active in using social media, leafleting and advertising in the local press to raise awareness.

Hosting the Family Navigators within the different organisations with such a diverse range of expertise also

created opportunities for cross-referrals. For example:

Staff based at Off the Record providing a counselling service were able to identify clients who might

benefit from support, and were able to broker an introduction to the Family Navigator; and,

The Family Navigator based within Home Start identified opportunities to link with the wider range of

services provided by the organisation. This included free transportation, which enabled families to

access a local play scheme, and access to a well-established volunteer network.

A key turning point for the Family Navigator service was identified in November 2014, when the project

moved to base Community Builders in GP surgeries and community centres for one day per week.

Project staff described how, largely as a result of this physical co-location, GPs and other professionals had

started to become more familiar with what the project could offer, and knew how and when to refer families.

10


Building on the success of this approach, the project also decided to use universal services as a connecting

point for the ABCD work, by placing four Community Builders in GP surgeries, pharmacies and schools in

three localities for weekly two hour sessions. The interviews suggest that this strategy has been successful in

joining-up the different strands of the project. As one senior project representative described:

"The Family Connectors work with Family Navigators and practitioners within the identified GP’s

surgeries, schools and pharmacies. They can use the Asset Map developed by the ABCD model to

refer families to the community based initiatives that have been developed in their area."

(Service Manager)

The effectiveness of this model in engaging with families is also supported by the monitoring data – over the

first ten week period of being based within universal services, the Community Builders documented 752

contacts, and generated 25 referrals to the Family Navigator service. This represents a significant increase

on previous levels of engagement during the period when most referrals were school-based.

11


3.0 Lessons Learned from

Project Delivery

12


3.0 Lessons Learned from Project Delivery

As noted in the previous chapter, the project was delivered via three main strands of activity. We now go on

to examine the lessons learned for each of these strands in turn.

3.1 Family Navigators

In total, six Family Navigators were recruited and trained to work on Croydon Family Power; each hosted

within a different organisation and performing a mix of centre-based and outreach work. This role was

defined by project staff and families largely in terms of the ‘advocacy’ approach; combining one-to-one

support with brokerage to other services. The Family Navigators also aimed to build the confidence of

family members to access local community support groups that might benefit them. The ability to perform this

role was greatly assisted by the fact that the host organisations were all VCOs with well-established roots in

the localities served by the project. One of the Family Navigators summed-up the role as follows:

"It is about taking families... and guiding them through the system. This is the essence of what the project does via the Family Navigator... [otherwise] people just get stuck... it helps individuals find the support, and brings parents together who have shared experiences". (Family Navigator)

Although differences could be observed between the Family Navigators within each organisation, a number

of common features emerged as being essential to the role. These are summarised in Table 3.1 below.

Table 3.1 Essential features of the Family Navigator role

Flexibility and accessibility – project staff spoke of the importance of offering support to fit around

individual families’ routines. This required some ‘out of hours’ support; helping to get children ready for

school or accompanying parents to appointments, for example, although staff also emphasised the

need to maintain boundaries and to avoid dependency.

A non-formal and non-stigmatising approach – engaging with the family on their terms and on a

voluntary basis proved importance in securing families’ engagement. Having some distance from

statutory services was also thought to have helped with this. For example, one parent described how

she felt comfortable discussing her circumstances from an early stage: "The approach was what made

me open up to her... I've also got a social worker and our relationship wasn't great at first, so the fact

that [Family Navigator] hasn't approached me as a worker but as a friend... let me open up to her".

Multi-dimensional support – the family interviews and testimonials underline how the Family

Navigator was often able to keep in sight the connections between different aspects of families’ lives,

taking account of their emotional, financial, health and practical support needs. The advocacy role

meant that there was a single worker with an overview, even though a number of different

organisations might be involved to provide the necessary expertise (e.g. housing, CABs, CAMHS).

Knowledge of rights and entitlements – families took reassurance from the breadth of knowledge

held by the Family Navigators, coupled with their professional status and ability to intervene where

families rights’ were not being observed. This included the ability to take rapid action contacting

creditors, housing authorities, or schools. One parent commented how: "She [Family Navigator] knew

my rights... I was trying with the council for months and nothing happened... but then after two days [of

the Family Navigator calling on her behalf] they took notice".

Empowering families to take control – the theme of getting families back on track was evident

throughout the case studies. Even where the Family Navigator needed to take direct action on behalf

of the family, this included a capacity-building element and aimed to boost families’ ability to advocate

for themselves.

13


The host organisations greatly valued the ability to provide a dedicated lead professional to work

intensively with families. Although they already provided a range of services to families prior to the project,

this was often previously delivered through support for individual parents or children, and in many cases the

work was carried out by volunteers. Staff commented on the greater security offered to families from having a

paid professional in a dedicated post of this kind, and the ability to access regular clinical supervision. The

Family Navigator was also seen to bring kudos with partners that the volunteers alone were unable to

achieve.

However, some concerns were expressed at the part-time status of the Family Navigators. One senior

manager thought it problematic that a lead professional model was offered to families for three days per

week, given the likelihood that issues could arise at any time. Looking beyond the grant-funding period, they

considered that it might be necessary to develop the role into a full time post in order to realise its potential.

Project staff reported that the assessment tools and processes used by the Family Navigators evolved

during the first few years of project delivery, as the new role was given time to bed down within the host

organisations. The shared management and supervisory structure was thought have played an important

moderating role, with different assessment practices discussed and reflected upon. Although there was still

no central reporting system in place at the time when the case study visit took place, the Family Navigators

were making routine use of family case studies, alongside a short service satisfaction questionnaire. These

non-formal methods of assessment and review have played an important role in documenting their work.

More formal assessment and diagnostic tools have also been used within the project, including the Family

Star. Project staff reflected that the Family Star was widely recognised and has travelled well between

partner organisations, adding an important element of comparability to the data collected by the Family

Navigators. However, using an off-the-shelf tool such did always prove well suited to capturing outcomes for

less intensive cases, which might last only 6-8 weeks with little opportunity to evidence distance travelled.

Equally, the more open-ended format of the ABCD community development has proven less well suited to

measuring outcomes using tools designed for individual family assessment (see below).

The budget holding aspect of the Family Navigator role was one of the features that the project set out to

test. Family Navigators oversaw a pot of discretionary funding, which could be used to purchase small items

for families or to subsidise the costs of transport, childcare, or other services. The main condition was that the

funding must be of direct benefit to families. As one Family Navigator summarised:

"It is for purchasing items to make families' lives better, and it has made a real difference. There

are lots of small examples of successes... school uniforms purchased, a bereavement book for

children, a sensory vest for a child with severe autism, night lights... the list goes on".

(Family Navigator)

CVA and their partners subsequently decided to draw-up a set of criteria for eligible expenditure. Project staff

generally thought that this was beneficial because it helped to ensure greater accountability for how the

funding was used by Family Navigators within the different host organisations. Table 3.2 below illustrates

some of the ways in which the funding was used. As these examples serve to illustrate, what appear to be

relatively innocuous items were often of much greater value when the families’ circumstances are known.

14


Table 3.2 Discretionary budget – some examples of how this was used

Football coaching, as the family were unable to afford extra-curricular activities and their son’s

behaviour had deteriorated at school, so this was used as a reward for improved behaviour.

A warm winter coat for the parent, so that she could take/collect her child from school, as she did not

have suitable attire for the winter months and had attracted attention from Education Welfare.

Cutlery and plates, as the family had been evicted and lost some of their furniture and household

goods.

School uniform, as the children were not going into school in suitable clothing.

A microwave, as mum was unable to afford a new one once her one packed in and relied heavily on a

microwave to prepare family meals due to her health condition.

A dining table so that the family could eat together once a day after experiencing a breakdown in

relationships.

Pest control items and sealed containers to alleviate a mouse infestation as the family could not afford

this due to having no recourse to public funds.

Counselling sessions for a parent who suffered with depression.

3.2 Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD)

The ABCD work stream was widely considered to have been a very successful element of the project, as

evidenced by the level of engagement in the individual activities, and participation of local residents within

each locality. In total, some 65 Community Connectors had been trained and 43 ABCD projects initiated at

the time of writing, which exceeded the original target of 60 Community Connectors at application stage.

Project staff reflected on how there was considerable support amongst residents for the idea of having skilled

community networkers, and for the active participation of the local community in developing the projects.

These themes have been strongly reflected in the portfolio to date, with community ‘ownership’ of the project

ideas. The ABCD model was thought to have brought an additional element of (managed) unpredictability to

the project, which has allowed the activities to "…develop in multiple directions". One project worker

described how ideas that started small scale were subsequently taken forwards by local residents who were

not afraid of tackling some of the most challenging issues affecting the local community.

There ABCD work also demonstrated clear evidence of an intergenerational approach, with children

actively involved as participants in identifying project themes and in overseeing their implementation

alongside adults. In one such project example, a school-based activity snowballed into a major online event

on preventing Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE). This was initiated by girls from a local school, who were able

to work with the Community Connector to secure the involvement of NSPCC and community groups

specialising in Domestic abuse (DA). Some 50 parents participated, and local women and girls joined with

local VCOs to form a Forum with the aim of identifying community led responses to CSE, domestic violence

and cyber safety in Thornton Heath. As one local partner commented:

“Some of these are very strong projects involving school children... and the beauty is that people

trust people from their own community. So there is potential for tackling issues such as Domestic

Violence”.

(Partner Organisation)


15


Figure 3.1 ABCD ‘asset maps’

View at: http://e-voice.org.uk/cvalive/abcd/croydon-family-power/croydon-family-power-asset-map/

The theme of reclaiming public space for community use has been central to the ABCD work, with a

particular focus on maximising the environmental and health benefits for local communities.

Figure 3.2 Healthy living project – Valley Park Estate

In a final example, the involvement of local schools was consolidated by developing the activities as part of a

Key Stage 3 Citizenship Education project. Table 3.3 further describes how this was developed.

A further area where ABCD has shown

promising results is in supporting asset

transfer. The ABCD asset ‘maps’ formed

the starting point for this work.

As Figure 3.1 illustrates, a number of

these maps have been made available

online as a searchable resource,

identifying locally available expertise,

advice or facilities (including service

provision that is available ‘free’ at the

point of access, or is provided on a

voluntary basis). They are also actively

used by Community Connectors and

Family Navigators to signpost families.

One such example is the development of a

healthy living site on waste ground outside GP

surgery on Valley Park Estate. This project

was led by local residents, and resourced

through gift-giving. A number of agencies have

helped to develop the site to promote exercise;

food growing; healthy eating, and to hold

residents’ meetings and events.

During the next phase, the Community

Connectors aim to build on successful models

in Lancashire and Lambeth, which have

developed a business case for involving GPs.

Within the Valley Park Garden Project, the aim

is to engage GPs to refer patients who face

isolation, lack of confidence and depression to

improve well-being by participating in

gardening activities.


http://e-voice.org.uk/cvalive/abcd/croydon-family-power/croydon-family-power-asset-map/

16


Table 3.3 ABCD project example: Redevelopment of an area of derelict land, as a shared space for

the local community

The project engaged with a local secondary school in Norbury through the ABCD work. The initial brief

was for Key Stage 3 pupils to survey residents, primary school pupils, and to interview a local counsellor

about the problem of fly tipping and graffiti in the vicinity of the school. Through this activity the pupils

identified the opportunity to clear up a vacant area of land adjacent to the school and turn it into an

educational resource which could also be used by local residents. This work was led by the young

people:

A task group was set-up to take the redevelopment project forward, including local residents the

pupils and their families, and the council granted access to the land.

Following the initial clearance, the site was cleared and pupils and local residents were involved in

planning how to create a sustainable habitat for wildlife and an open space for access by the

community.

The KS3 pupils taking part reported that the local residents had engaged well in the project, and

some had volunteered their spare time. The primary school pupils also gained valuable experience

of working with their older peers and focussing on citizenship.

One local resident observed how since the project started: "the fly tipping has got less and less.

The community is more aware of what's being done... it's a brilliant idea".

Project staff reflected that the project has been a great success in promoting inter-generational learning

between members of the community. The Norbury project was held up as an example of how community

development can provide important groundwork for family interventions.

3.3 Evidence-based Programmes

For varying reasons, the evidence-based programmes that formed part of the original project model were

ultimately not as successful as the Family Navigator and ABCD work streams. The project learned important

lessons through this process, however, which have been fully documented.

Just What We Need: Parent Pods - the locally developed parenting programme – was widely considered to

be a high quality service. However, levels of take-up were much lower than anticipated. This would seem to

have been for two main reasons:

First, project staff reflected that the service did not add as much value as was anticipated to locally

available provision: "The programme was very good, but in terms of offering an evidence-based

curriculum, there are other professionals who are equally able to deliver this aspect".

Second, it apparent that the demand for the service was over-estimated, and whilst the Family

Navigators made some referrals, this was done selectively and using the “right message at the right

time” to avoid the potential stigma of raising the need for help with parenting. Parent Pod was also

affected by the closure of the CRISS service, which originally planned to make 200 referrals.

The Roots of Empathy programme was taken forward with Canadian team and supported by the WAVE

Trust, in collaboration with Lewisham. This strand of the project formed a major focus of activities during the

first two years, but the project took the difficult decision to withdraw support after just two schools engaged in

the third year. The partners felt that, although the model is an excellent one, the timing was wrong for

Croydon set against a backdrop of major restructuring to the schools system within the borough. Ultimately,

there was a lack of willingness for schools to commit due to changing funding priorities and turnover in school

staff during this time: "this has meant that it's difficult to get into schools unless it’s something that they have


17


to do… harder evidence is needed to make the business case". Project staff also identified challenges with

the role of volunteer instructor, where the parent brings their baby to work with the group.

Again, the piloting brought home the socio-economic challenges faced within the borough:

"This role [Volunteer Instructor] is very difficult to do on a pure volunteer basis... parents can't

commit for a year, and some remuneration is needed... it's hard to replicate in a deprived inner city

area”

(Project Worker)

A number of individual family case study examples were captured by the partner organisations involved with

these programmes, however, and the project experience by no means calls their value into question.

3.4 Working with Partners

Partnership working was a core requirement of the Improving Futures programme, and was also central to

the delivery of the model proposed for Croydon Family Power. Some key differences could be observed in

the mode of partnership working used for the different strands of the project, with the Family Navigators

delivering to a more formal and pre-determined structure based around six key delivery partners, and the

ABCD work being more ‘fluid’ in nature; accumulating a wide range of expertise in response to local needs.

Overall, these differences would seem to have been fit for purpose to each work stream.

The partnership arrangements for the Family Navigator work stream were organised around a central

management and supervisory group, coordinated by CVA as the lead partner, and meeting every 6-8

weeks. Project staff generally thought this model had worked very well in bringing together workers with a

background in mental health, physical disability and parenting, alongside other areas of expertise, and

providing a forum for peer-to-peer support. The structure provided a mechanism for cross-referrals, where

families might need more specialist support. For example, Disability Croydon supported all partners where

families have physical disability issues, and MIND provided equivalent expertise around mental health.

Collectively, the management and supervisory arrangements were considered by the project partners to have

been robust, with common standards and expectations in place across the partnership. As one of the

managers of the organisations hosting the Family Navigators concluded that:

"Everyone is working to a consistent standard... this reflects the collective knowledge of child

development processes that was brought together by the partners"

(Service Manager)

A number of key learning points were identified by project staff, in ensuring the smooth operation of this

structure. These included the following:

1. Ensuring consistent referral criteria – both within and between partner organisations

2. Providing clear definitions of eligible expenditure (family budgets)

3. Ensuring transparency and accountability of decisions made by individual Family Navigators; and,

4. Effective and frequent communication between individual Family Navigators, including both

formalised group sessions and informal peer support between the practitioners.

The model was considered to have good potential for replication, and indeed had been included as a referral

route within a national funding application, as we discuss further at Section Four.

18


3.5 Challenges and Lessons Learned

It was necessary for the project to respond to a number of challenges, which are summarised below:

Maintaining schools’ engagement – the challenge of maintaining a presence in schools was apparent

across the different strands of the project. This was thought to have been particularly difficult during a

period of rapid change within the sector, with more Academies emerging and having greater

independence. Project staff emphasised the importance of identifying a key ‘gate keeper’ within

individual schools, and sharing feedback and results (especially relating to attendance and behaviour).

Managing complexity and risk - there was real challenge in managing demand for the service

alongside capacity, which was exacerbated by the higher level of need / complexity than was

anticipated. Families were often far from ready to be stepped down at 6-8 weeks, and tapering of

support was necessary over a longer period of time. This often included keeping files open, and

maintaining lighter touch telephone support. The approach was also manage by providing additional

training for staff in risk management, to improve their confidence in knowing when to step-up / down:

“This is where the clinical supervision is very helpful, because it reduces the risk... when is it ok

and when is it not ok to step back… quite often an indicator of when families can be stepped

down is where there are one or two residual (chronic) issues that might require longer-term

support, but which can be largely addressed by a single organisation”.

(Senior Practitioner)

Tackling stigma – project staff emphasised the importance of managing families' anxieties around a

'social care' agenda, and the perceived negative consequences of having their children taken away if

they admitted needing support. This sometimes required careful encouragement and reassurance by the

Family Navigators to prevent families from disengaging. Similar anxieties were found in relation to

families signing-up for parenting courses. The Family Navigators sought ways to present the opportunity

in a way that resonated with individual families. For example:

“In one case, a parent who resisted starting a 'parenting skills' course eventually had an interest

when recommended a course titled 'bringing-up boys… you have to be creative”.

(Family Navigator)


19


4.0 Project Achievements

and Sustainability

20


4.0 Project Achievements and Sustainability

The project set itself targets for outputs within the original Business Plan, as well as identifying a number of

priority outcomes for families. In this chapter we consider the extent to which the project achieved the

intended results, and consider families’ perspectives on how or whether the support made a difference.

4.1 Project Outputs

As we have discussed in this report, the target number of families to be supported was ambitious, and in

practice the achieved numbers have fallen some way below the original targets. The project forecast that

some 2,000 beneficiaries would access via the Roots of Empathy programme alone, based on the original

ambitions to scale-up during the three year funding period, so the difficulties encountered with this strand had

a knock-on effect for the targets overall. As discussed at Section 2.2, the closure of the CRISS due to local

authority restructuring also closed a major referral route to the Family Navigator service. However, the ABCD

activities – whilst far more difficult to quantify – have clearly achieved considerable ‘reach’ within the target

wards and were continuing to go from strength-to-strength at the time of writing in May 2015.

4.2 Project Outcomes

The project gathered a variety of sources of evidence to demonstrate outcomes for children and families,

which was supplemented with evidence captured through the evaluation case study work and the Improving

Futures Monitoring Information System (IFMIS) tool. The IFMIS captures strengths and risk factors for each

family, based on the evidence recorded by practitioners within the service plan. In the charts that follow, the

before / after comparison is restricted to those families for whom both entry and exit data was available. The

IFMIS can be used to infer positive and negative outcomes from the project, but it does not include a

comparison group and does not therefore show ‘impacts’.

The overall picture to emerge from the IFMIS underlines the focus of the project on building strengths and

resilience. All but one of the 19 adult strengths within the IFMIS showed a positive change in-between the

entry and exit stages, whilst a similar picture emerges for the 11 child strengths, with all but one showing a

positive change. As Table 4.1 overleaf illustrates, one of the strongest areas relates to parenting capacity

and confidence, with a 25% reduction in problems with discipline and boundary setting and a 10% reduction

in parenting anxiety or frustration across the 191 families for whom both entry and exit data was available.

These outcomes are reinforced by the corresponding increase in strengths relating to the following:

appropriate boundary-setting for children (68 families at entry to 90 families at exit)

regular bedtimes, mealtimes and school routines (58 families at entry to 83 families at exit)

quite marked reductions in the number of children demonstrating persistent disruptive behaviour (44

children at entry to 36 children at exit); and,

persistent disruptive and violent behaviour (30 children at entry to 24 children at exit)


21


Table 4.1 Parenting capacity and confidence

Base: 191 families

A further set of positive outcomes emerge in relation to parent-child interactions and relationships, with

more parents listening to and reading with the child(ren) on a regular basis, attending regular play sessions

with their child(ren) and supporting with school work / homework upon exiting. Indeed, parental engagement

with their children’s learning is further apparent through the increased proportion of parents or carers having

regular face-to-face contact with school staff, and reporting positive relationships with school staff.

Table 4.2 Child-parent interactions and relationships

Base: 191 families

Thirdly, the IFMIS data reinforces the role of the project in helping to tackle social isolation – for both adults

and children. The child outcomes are particularly marked in this respect, with significant improvements in the

proportion of children identified as having access to supportive peer friendships at school (from 58 at entry to

104 at exit); regular contact with friends outside of school (from 35 to 74 children), and regular participation in

sports or leisure activities (from 18 to 66 children). Involvement in local and community organisations also

shows an upwards trend.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Parenting anxiety or frustration

Problems with discipline and boundarysetting

Appropriate boundary-setting for children

135. Regular bedtimes, mealtimes andschool routine

Exit

Entry

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Regular participation in family activities

Listening to and reading with the child(ren)on a regular basis

Attending regular play sessions with thechild(ren)

Supporting with school work / homework

Participation in structured family learningactivities

Exit

Entry

22


Table 4.3 Tackling social isolation and strengthening peer friendships

Base: 191 families

Other noticeable areas of improvement can be found for children and families attending medical

appointments, including routine GP appointments, health checks and immunizations (an increase from 120

children at entry to 182 at exit), and dental appointments (from 68 children at entry to 110 children at exit

stage. Positive change is also found for adults gaining basic qualifications (at Entry level or below).

Economic wellbeing emerges as a theme as well, with a significant increase in the number of families with a

family budget in place and being actively managed (from 37 families at entry to 66 at exit), and an uptake in

the proportion of adult family members accessing appropriate benefit entitlements (from 54 to 84 families). A

good proportion of families were also taking-up Child Tax Credits and free childcare entitlements by the end

of their involvement in the project, where they had not been doing so at the start.

Areas where IFMIS shows less positive change include housing-related outcomes, where there is no

evidence of improvements for families related to overcrowded conditions (20 families at entry and 22 at exit),

or poor quality housing with significant cold, damp or mould problems (12 families at entry and 13 families at

exit), and a slight increase in the proportion of families living in temporary accommodation (from 9 families at

entry to 12 at exit). This picture is perhaps unsurprising given that the programme is not designed primarily

as a housing intervention, but underlines the persistent challenging living conditions (and in some cases

poverty) that some families face. The data for school exclusions and unauthorised absences is also

disappointing, in that it suggests little if any change between entry and exit at a cohort level.

Other areas showing what at first seems to be negative change are perhaps best explained by way of the fact

that the project has played a role in identifying previously undisclosed issues. As Table 4.4 overleaf

illustrates; there is a slight increase in the number of children with a diagnosed emotional or behavioural

disorder; children with Learning Difficulties or Disabilities, and both children and adults with mental health

problems between entry and exit stage. Similarly the IFMIS data reveals the diagnostic function of the project

for families where there were previously unidentified safeguarding concerns, with an increased number of

children subject to a Child in Need Plans and Child Protection Plans following referral to the project.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Supportive peer friendships at school

Regular contact with friends outside ofschool

Regular participation in sports or leisureactivities

Group membership - involvement in localand community organisations

Regular participation in exercise or physicalactivity

Regular participation in play opportunities

Exit

Entry

23


Table 4.4. Identifying previously undisclosed issues

Base: 191 families

The project also used the Family Star as a tool to measure change between the start and exit stage of

families’ involvement, with Stars completed for 70 families at the time of writing. The results were very

positive, with just over three quarters of families (77%) recording an increase in their overall star score, and

much smaller proportions of families recording either no change (17%), or an overall decrease (9%)3. The

results concur to with the IFMIS data to some degree, when individual categories are included. The most

positive changes were recorded for ‘social networks’ and ‘education and learning’.

Family testimonials provided during the case study visit further illustrate the outcomes from the project for

families’ self-confidence, wellbeing, and in overcoming social isolation, as Table 4.3 illustrates.

Table 4.3 Family case study 1 – Croydon Family Power

Trudy4 initially came to Disability Croydon as a service user, to see what support they could offer to her

son with disabilities. She first heard about the Family Navigators through Facebook via other people she

knew who had been helped and wanted to find out more. She found this was an easy way to get in touch

After making an appointment with the Family Navigator, Trudy took part in both one-to-one and group

work. She was surprised at how much they could do for her: ""She (Family Navigator) makes you feel at

ease straightaway… she is a go-between for you and other services that you can access… she does a lot

of referrals, because of her knowledge of different organisations".

Trudy felt like the Family Navigator had really listened to her and what her future goals were. She

reflected that the project gave her the confidence to start doing access course in child development at a

local college, which she "passed with flying colours". She has since progressed onto a Foundation

Degree, which she is completing part time alongside her volunteering role, and hopes to gain paid

employment

A recurrent theme within the family interviews conducted for the case study was the extent to which families’

situations had become ‘blocked’ – often as a result of the cumulative effects of low income, poor quality

housing, and social isolation. Often the ability for the family to take control of their situation was hindered by

parental mental health issues, including depression, stress and low self-esteem, with a knock-on effect for

3 Service Report, March 2015.

4 Not real name.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Diagnosed emotional or behavioural disorder

Other mental health problems (specify)

Learning Difficulties or Disabilities

Child protection concerns

Subject to a Child in Need Plan

Subject to a Child Protection Plan

Exit

Entry

24


their parenting capacity. These issues were frequently mirrored in the child’s behaviour and their engagement

with education. The interviews showed how, by working inclusively with the family to provide emotional and

practical support, it was often possible for the Family Navigator to unblock the situation for the family and to

start to build their knowledge and capacity to deal with their housing, financial, schooling and welfare

situation. Parents described quite powerfully just how important the role of the Family Navigator was in

helping them to find motivation, at times when depression and low self-esteem were acute:

“I needed help with motivation because I was depressed. That was good for me... giving me a

push. I needed someone to push me constantly”.

(Parent, Croydon Family Power)

“When my depression was worst, I was getting memory loss and confusion. Having [Family

Navigator] there was important for everyday things...she motivates me to get up and do things".


And the inter-relationship between improved outcomes for adults and children in the family was very clear:

"I've got my voice back, I feel more confident… and this has made such a difference to my

daughter. She is happy to get up and brush her teeth and go to school now because I'm not

depressed... it affected her so much without me noticing, but now she's different. She is more

interested in her friends".


The following case study illustrates how the ability for the Family Navigator to support families in achieving

positive outcomes required tenacity – quite of the in the face of multiple set-backs. The following case study

also reinforces the theme of housing insecurity and transience, which was also discussed in Chapter Two.


Daphne5 lives alone with her young son, who has behavioural difficulties and a history of health issues.

She originally made contact with Home Start over two years ago, and was allocated a volunteer. She

was struggling at the time with depression, social isolation, and health issues, She also had problems

with her immigration status, and was in temporary accommodation after being moved by the council on

multiple occasions.

Daphne was told about the new service that was available from the Family Navigator, when the post

was created within Home Start. She was interested in how they might be able to help. The initial contact

with the Family Navigator was managed as a 'warm referral', as Daphne was already being supported

by a Home Start volunteer.

The initial support focussed on a number of priority issues that had 'stuck' at the time:

Help with immigration papers

Application for free childcare entitlement funding for son

Help with accessing a p/t adult education course, to help develop skills, make friends and overcome

social isolation

Contacting the landlord to provide adequate heating and lighting; and,

Food bank access

Daphne made good progress in first few months, but her housing situation came to a head, and she

was moved across to the other side of London at short notice. The Family Navigator kept the file open

55

Not real name

25



and kept in touch during this time. The support resumed again one year later when Daphne was re-

housed in Croydon, although the Family Navigator noted that the housing situation had made it far more

difficult to provide the necessary support.

Daphne’s son is now enrolled at school, her immigration status has been assured and she has been

able to access the childcare funding entitlements. Daphne highlighted the importance of the support

from the Family Navigator, and particularly their willingness to maintain contact during the period when

she was re-housed. She felt that were it not for this support, she would have fallen off the radar of

services at the time: "If I had not had the support [from the Key Worker] I would have been by myself,

with no heating, no food, no phone, no gas, and nowhere to go".

Looking ahead, Daphne aims to enrol for a course and further build on confidence gains made so far, as

social isolation is still an issue. She feels that emergency crisis issues have been largely resolved, and

will be in a better position to manage own situation going forwards.

Whilst not captured in anything like such a systematic way, the ABCD project was also reported to have

realised considerable benefits for children and families within the three target localities. These included:

Acquiring new knowledge - learning about the health and economic benefits of growing and cooking

with fresh produce (community garden), and developing new skills through cultivating and consuming.

Improving levels of physical activity, and adopting healthier lifestyles

Developing skills for participation - including decision-making and communication skills; and,

Strengthening relationships between children and adults, and developing mutual respect – including

through school-based and community-based projects.

A future aspiration for the project was to build on the newly formed links with GP surgeries to take referrals

from patients who might be experiencing mental health problems, including stress, depression and anxiety,

low self-esteem and bereavement, and to tackle these issues in a sustainable way through the ABCD

projects. The Community Connectors hoped to realise these outcomes for families through a combination of

brokering access to local networks and support groups, and providing one-to-one support if needed.

A further intended type of outcome for the project was to achieve improved quality and levels of partnership

working between the VCS and statutory sectors. As we discussed in Chapter Three, the partnership

working has been largely very effective through the project and representatives from the local authority were

very engaged at the point when the case study visit took place, with Croydon Family Power very much

featuring in wider plans for the remodelling of the Early Help offer for families and the arrangements for the

expanded Troubled Families programme. The links with GP surgeries were also an exciting new

development, with potential for further extending the influence of the project during 2016.

26


4.3 Sustainability

Sustainability has been addressed by the project in two main contexts – both in terms of ensuring effective

transition arrangements for families upon exiting one-to-one support, and the financial sustainability of the

project partnership and delivery models beyond the grant period for the Big Lottery Fund.

There was positive evidence that the Family Navigators were routinely signposting families to relevant

training or volunteering opportunities coming towards an end of their support, so that they were better

equipped to sustain their progress. There were also widespread examples of families signposted to local

support groups and projects; both pre-existing and those created through Improving Futures. This provided a

wider set of options than a more traditional hand-over to a community volunteer.

There was a good deal of consensus amongst project staff and partners that the elements of Croydon Family

Power with the strongest potential for replication include the ABCD projects and Family Navigators. At the

time of writing, there were positive signs that these two models had generated sufficient interest to continue

in some form beyond the original Improving Futures grant period, although project staff underlined the

importance of securing bridge funding to make this possible. At the time of writing in May 2015:

The local authority had included the Family Navigator model within their application to the Expanded

Troubled Families Programme, as a commissioned service and to receive ‘step down’ cases. The

model was also reported to have received the endorsement of CCGs in Croydon, as a result of the

exposure achieved during the funding period with GPs and other health professionals.

Whilst not exclusive to Croydon Family Power, the success of the ABCD model had also generated in

interest from the local authority, who were piloting in a deprived locality in South Croydon, and the

CCG who were piloting in West Croydon. The latter example included some additional funding for the

Family Navigators, to receive direct referrals from GPs, pharmacies and children's centres.

Looking further ahead, project staff identified that the updated Early Help strategy in Croydon should help to

sustain demand for the Family Navigator model. One senior project representative described how there will

be a greater onus on schools and partner agencies to pick up Level 2 families, and at the cusp of Level 3,

where the troubled families service begins. The grant funding provided through Improving Futures was

thought to have helped to showcase the Family Navigators and captured a niche within the new framework.

27


5.0 Conclusions and

Recommendations

28


5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

In the previous chapters of this report we have examined the context in which Croydon Family Power was

developed, and the lessons learned from setting-up and implementing the different strands of the project. We

then went on to consider the main achievements and outcomes. In this final chapter we draw together the

evidence to reflect on the overall conclusions and to present a set of recommendations.

5.1 Concluding Thoughts

Overall, the partnership for the Croydon Family Power project has developed an impressive portfolio of work

with families and communities in the borough, under strong leadership from CVA, and working closely with

statutory agencies during the three year period. Although not all of the original elements have been retained,

the project has adopted the principles of a ‘test and learn’ approach, showing willingness to pilot, review and

make adjustments at each stage. This approach is very much in the spirit of the Improving Futures

Programme, and has helped the project to adapt in response to the challenges encountered during

implementation, resulting in a strong and evidence-based model at the end of the grant period. The recent

successful application to extend to April 2016 should allow the project to further consolidate.

The project has also built a valuable evidence base to inform future service development for ‘just coping’

families in Croydon. Most notably:

It has shown that demand of parenting support is contingent on skilled practitioners choosing the right

timing and message for individual families to engage in a way that avoids stigma, and that the original

estimates for levels of participation in parenting programmes were unrealistic.

It has also underlined the challenges involved in replicating evidence-based programmes in the context

of inner-city communities experiencing high levels of poverty and disadvantage, and against a

backdrop of welfare reforms. The experience of Croydon Family Power suggests that a harder

evidence base is needed to fully engage schools in developing interventions to strengthen children’s

social and emotional wellbeing.

The project has further demonstrated the extent to which families falling below the threshold for

intervention at Level 4 (acute) within Croydon have often presented with chronic and entrenched

issues relating to poor mental health, low self-esteem; social isolation and housing impermanency, with

implications for child development.

The project experience indicates a need for more sustained collaboration between services at the cusp of

statutory intervention, and the potential role that VCOs have to play in plugging this service gap.

The multi-agency partnership underpinning the Family Navigator model stands out as being particularly

noteworthy amongst the elements within the project. The dual model of Family Navigators holding a thematic

specialism (e.g. mental health, disabilities), and geographical responsibilities has proven to be an effective

way to harness the expertise within the VCS in Croydon to meet the needs of a very diverse local population.

The partners recognised from an early stage that centralised management and supervision, underpinned by

a shared definition of child development was vital to ensure consistency in the support provided to families.

As well as helping to transfer professional knowledge between individual VCS organisations within the

partnership, there is also evidence that the ‘hosting’ approach has served to raise awareness of whole family

approaches and to embed the Family Navigator’s expertise within the individual organisations.

29


However, it is arguably the fairly unique way in which the two elements (Family Navigators and ABCD)

have been combined within the project that offers the strongest potential for replication. The dual

approach of strengthening individual families whilst linking them with community networks and resources is

likely to be of interest to any local authorities seeking to make their offer of family support sustainable. In the

case of Croydon Family Power, the Total Place Pilot would seem to have laid the groundwork for Croydon

Family Power, and the importance of adopting a place-based approach was already widely recognised.

The effectiveness of this approach is underlined by the wide range of positive outcomes evidenced through

the IFMIS data, including the headline 25% reduction in problems with discipline and boundary setting, and a

10% reduction in parenting anxiety or frustration across the 191 families for whom both entry and exit data

was available. This is alongside positive outcomes for child behaviour, access to peer networks and

friendship groups; more regular parent-child interaction, and positive signs that families were more likely to

be accessing the appropriate entitlements and managing a family budget upon exiting the project.

Importantly, the IFMIS data also demonstrates an improvement in the number of families attending medical

and dental appointments, thus helping to further make a case for the involvement of GPs and health partners.

The project has demonstrated the potential for universal service settings such as GP surgeries and

community centres to serve as a conduit for managing referrals to and from the ABCD projects and the

one-to-one support, and the importance of having advocates for each model (the Community Connectors and

Family Navigators) co-located on a regular basis. The genuinely community-led nature of the ABCD projects

also stands out as being particularly impressive, with children and families playing a central role in shaping

the community projects and driving these forwards in collaboration with adults.

5.2 Recommendations

In looking ahead to the potential future development of Croydon Family Power, it is possible to identify a

number of recommendations for CVA and the partners to consider:

Recommendation 1: To further explore the potential for mainstreaming project model as a

commissioned service within Croydon – the evidence indicates that the Family Navigator model has

demonstrated its credibility as a service providing valuable support to families at Level 2 and 3 within

Croydon. In light of this evidence, it would seem appropriate for the project team to use the remaining

funding period to identify opportunities to mainstream the service in the medium-term. The inclusion of

Croydon Family Power within the recent funding application for the Expanded Troubled Families

programme is a positive sign that the project is recognised and valued by statutory partners.

Recommendation 2: To review lead professional responsibilities within the Family Navigator

model – the interviews conducted for the evaluation highlighted some potential concerns around the

tension between the part time staffing model for the Family Navigators, and the lead professional role

that is offered to families. It might be beneficial for the project to reflect on this feedback and consider

whether any additional measures are needed to manage the risks associated with this approach.

Recommendation 3: To enhance the evidence base for the ABCD strand of the project – the

project has produced an impressive set of case studies and testimonials to evidence the success of the

ABCD projects, alongside monitoring numbers of contacts / referrals as an indicator of the ‘reach’ of this

work. As the extended funding period provides a longer period over which to self-evaluate, it might be

beneficial to explore additional methods for capturing and evidencing the impact of this work. The use of

Social Return on Investment (SROI) and / or Social Network Analysis are potential options.

Recommendation 4: To network with other projects developing place-based approaches towards

supporting families – as Croydon Family Power is one of a number of projects seeking to develop an

asset-based approach toward supporting families, it would seem advantageous to network and share

30


learning with other projects seeking to do the same. The learning workshops to be run by the national

Improving Futures team in the summer of 2016 should provide a good opportunity to do so, as

community development is one of three themes for the national evaluation in the coming year.

Documents

Croydon Family Power - Evaluation Report