This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/19/troubled-families-scheme-ministers-claims-grandiose-mps-told

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Ministers' claims about troubled families scheme 'grandiose', MPs told Ministers' claims about troubled families scheme 'grandiose', MPs told
(35 minutes later)
Ministers made “grandiose” and exaggerated claims in favour of the £1.2bn troubled families programme despite a lack of statistical evidence showing the policy had achieved a significant impact, MPs have heard.Ministers made “grandiose” and exaggerated claims in favour of the £1.2bn troubled families programme despite a lack of statistical evidence showing the policy had achieved a significant impact, MPs have heard.
Members of the Commons public accounts committee accused ministers of “overselling and under-delivering” the controversial programme, which was introduced in 2011 following the August riots in an attempt to tackle antisocial behaviour in supposedly “problem” families.Members of the Commons public accounts committee accused ministers of “overselling and under-delivering” the controversial programme, which was introduced in 2011 following the August riots in an attempt to tackle antisocial behaviour in supposedly “problem” families.
The official evaluation of the first phase of the troubled families programme, published on Monday, concluded that there was no clear statistical evidence that it had had any effect in “turning round” the lives of more than 100,000 families on the scheme.The official evaluation of the first phase of the troubled families programme, published on Monday, concluded that there was no clear statistical evidence that it had had any effect in “turning round” the lives of more than 100,000 families on the scheme.
Whitehall officials defended the programme, which has been expanded and will run until 2020, telling MPs that although a decision on whether to continue was one for ministers, there was “sufficient evidence” to justify proceeding with it in future.Whitehall officials defended the programme, which has been expanded and will run until 2020, telling MPs that although a decision on whether to continue was one for ministers, there was “sufficient evidence” to justify proceeding with it in future.
Melanie Dawes, permanent secretary at the Department for Communities and Local Government, said the programme’s interventions had made real and demonstrable improvements to families’ lives in terms of raising school attendance levels and employment rates, and reducing rates of crime and antisocial behaviour.Melanie Dawes, permanent secretary at the Department for Communities and Local Government, said the programme’s interventions had made real and demonstrable improvements to families’ lives in terms of raising school attendance levels and employment rates, and reducing rates of crime and antisocial behaviour.
MPs referred to claims made by the former prime minister David Cameron last year that the programme had successfully “turned around” the lives of more than 99% of the 117,000 families involved in its first phase.MPs referred to claims made by the former prime minister David Cameron last year that the programme had successfully “turned around” the lives of more than 99% of the 117,000 families involved in its first phase.
The Labour MP Chris Evans suggested to Dawes that that such a level of success was unlikely, saying: “To be honest, if that is what you have turned around, you should be running every government department!” The Labour MP Chris Evans suggested to Dawes that such a level of success was unlikely, saying: “To be honest, if that is what you have turned around, you should be running every government department!”
Dawes rejected suggestions from the committee that the programme had been an “exercise in self-justification” designed to deliver short-term political promises after the riots. But she admitted it was difficult to prove statistically that the programme alone was responsible for the improvements, and it was not possible to prove that it had delivered financial savings.Dawes rejected suggestions from the committee that the programme had been an “exercise in self-justification” designed to deliver short-term political promises after the riots. But she admitted it was difficult to prove statistically that the programme alone was responsible for the improvements, and it was not possible to prove that it had delivered financial savings.
Evans questioned the the term “turned around” as a credible measure of what were short-term interventions in the lives of families facing often deep-rooted disadvantage, while the Labour MP Bridget Phillipson suggested ministers had made “grandiose claims” about the scheme’s effectiveness.Evans questioned the the term “turned around” as a credible measure of what were short-term interventions in the lives of families facing often deep-rooted disadvantage, while the Labour MP Bridget Phillipson suggested ministers had made “grandiose claims” about the scheme’s effectiveness.
Dawes said the government had done the right thing in launching the programme: “Did we oversell and under-deliver? The answer to that is no.”Dawes said the government had done the right thing in launching the programme: “Did we oversell and under-deliver? The answer to that is no.”
The former head of the programme Dame Louise Casey said that although the term “turned around” was right for the time it would be better not to use it in future. But she defended the programme, saying it represented “value for money writ large”.The former head of the programme Dame Louise Casey said that although the term “turned around” was right for the time it would be better not to use it in future. But she defended the programme, saying it represented “value for money writ large”.
Dawes said that while the payment-by-results method had “galvanised” changes in the way services were delivered, officials were exploring other ways of financing the scheme in future.Dawes said that while the payment-by-results method had “galvanised” changes in the way services were delivered, officials were exploring other ways of financing the scheme in future.
MPs challenged officials as to why the evaluation was slipped out without fanfare at 6.15pm on Monday evening, more than a year later than its original publication date.MPs challenged officials as to why the evaluation was slipped out without fanfare at 6.15pm on Monday evening, more than a year later than its original publication date.
The committee’s chair, Meg Hillier, demanded to know if the report, which had delivered a devastating critique of one of the government’s top policy priorities, had been delayed as a way of suppressing its findings. She asked: “Who are you protecting in all of this? Are you protecting your department, your minister?”The committee’s chair, Meg Hillier, demanded to know if the report, which had delivered a devastating critique of one of the government’s top policy priorities, had been delayed as a way of suppressing its findings. She asked: “Who are you protecting in all of this? Are you protecting your department, your minister?”
Dawes denied the report had been buried and blamed some of the delays on problems with some of the data analysis carried out by members of the consortium of independent evaluators that produced the reports.Dawes denied the report had been buried and blamed some of the delays on problems with some of the data analysis carried out by members of the consortium of independent evaluators that produced the reports.
Casey criticised individuals who had been involved in the evaluation and who made strong criticisms of the programme earlier this week, believed to be a reference to the economist Jonathan Portes, who accused ministers in an article in the Guardian of having misrepresented the troubled families dataCasey criticised individuals who had been involved in the evaluation and who made strong criticisms of the programme earlier this week, believed to be a reference to the economist Jonathan Portes, who accused ministers in an article in the Guardian of having misrepresented the troubled families data
Casey said: “I think that lots of comment made by those closely involved in the evaluation who have been leading in the press in the past few days has been unedifying.”Casey said: “I think that lots of comment made by those closely involved in the evaluation who have been leading in the press in the past few days has been unedifying.”