Supplementary written evidence submitted
by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
(CAFCASS) (CAF 65)
CHILDREN AND
FAMILY COURT
ADVISORY AND
SUPPORT SERVICE—MEMORANDUM
TO THE
SELECT COMMITTEE
ON THE
LORD CHANCELLOR'S
DEPARTMENT
CAFCASS is submitting this additional memorandum
to inform the Committee's inquiry. Since our memorandum submitted
in March we have received a clearer indication of funding allocation
for 2003-04 and this has enabled us to firm up our work programme
for the year. We are also able to provide updated performance
information.
1. BUDGET CONTEXT
1.1 This is the first year when we have
a stable and increased budget to plan for the future.
1.2 Priorities are to strengthen service
delivery capacity and professional development, in particular
to fund:
— increases in practitioner numbers
to add capacity to allocate against demand;
— Moving towards equity in funding
regions against relative caseload;
— funding the extra costs of harmonised
and improved terms of service for employed staff and increased
self-employed Guardian fees;
— providing a ring fenced recovery
contingency fund to be available to meet current service shortfalls;
— the development of training; and
— incremental development of national
case management systems.
2. THE SERVICE
CONTEXT
2.2 There has been a focus in the evidence
on shortfalls in service delivery particularly on public law care
cases. CAFACSS recognises that, particularly in some parts of
the country there are problems we are working to overcome. But
it is important to understand the complex reasons, some stretching
back for years, which have led to the issue. They are:
— Increase in Demand. Judicial statistics
for 2001 showed over 24,000 public law applications were made
(up 10% from the previous year) and over 112,000 private law applications
were made (up 17% from the previous year). CAFCASS has faced a
particular increase in care case requests—the most time
consuming and sensitive part of the work. In the six months to
March 2003 we received care case requests, up 15% compared to
the corresponding periods to March 2002.
— Variations in Practice. The range
for the average number of hours worked on a care case that CAFCASS
inherited ranged from 82 hours in Sefton to 186 hours in Surrey.
Inner London averaged 164 hours whereas Bradford and Leeds managed
105 hours and Manchester 110 hours. The reasons for the variation
are themselves complex but include the length of time in the family
court process, factors such as the level of court and the quality
of the local authority work, and Guardian individual practice.
So a given amount of practitioner capacity has a different outcome
across the country in terms of the volume of cases handled.
— Social Work Recruitment Difficulties.
Many of our Guardians entered social work in the 1970s and 1980s
so there was a pool of well qualified child care professionals
when the Children Act was implemented who have remained the mainstay
of the service. Nearly half our employed staff are over 50. Recruitment
now takes place in a tight social work market where 48% of local
authorities who have the front line responsibility for the care
plans for children report difficulty in recruiting social workers.
— The Inheritance. Alongside the quality
and experience of practitioners CAFCASS inherited a contract with
the self-employed that the Inland Revenue had made clear was not
sustainable, and where resources were topped up at the expense
of other parts of the Local Authority budget in response to demand.
CAFCASS, like other public bodies, has to manage the demand within
finite resources of money and practitioners. Clearly mistakes
were made in the handling of the issue by the Project Team and
CAFCASS, but the inherited position could not have continued unchanged.
There were inherent risks in being so reliant in parts of the
country on self employed practitioners who can by definition choose
whether to take cases we are required in law to allocate.
2.3 A number of comments have been made
about actions that CAFCASS has allegedly taken which we believe
need clarification.
(a) CAFCASS is largely responsible for the
increasing time in care cases. The increases in the time that
it takes cases to go through the family law system—up to
48 weeks on average—stem from a range of factors including
court management and practice itself, local authority readiness,
and availability of experts. Clearly prompt allocation of Guardians
to cases is important but it is not the sole or main contributor
to delay. All those organisations involved in the process are
now working together to address the issue of delay.
(b) CAFCASS has decimated the service. When
CAFCASS was set up there were 864 guardians of whom some 695 were
self-employed, the rest employed. Of the self-employed 314 accepted
the new self-employed contract offered in April 2002, and 277
previously self-employed Guardians have accepted employment with
CAFCASS. The remainder have been finishing off cases.
In 2002-03 we used a total of 379 self-employed
practitioners. In addition CAFCASS now has 599 employed practitioners
on public law contracts (including the 277 previous self employed)
reflecting a major recruitment campaign. So there has been no
reduction in numbers working as guardians although self-employed
professionals will vary in their capacity and readiness to take
cases.
(c) CAFCASS wishes to phase out the use of
self-employed guardians. We are continuing to operate a mixed
economy in accordance with the explicit decision about this made
by the CAFCASS Board in February 2002. Over 4,400 cases are held
by self-employed guardians in March 2003 300 more than in March
2002. The number of self-employed guardians who have as many or
more cases in March compared with the position a year previously
is almost exactly the same as the number who have reduced their
caseload. We do, however, need to ensure certainty of supply;
avoid a guarantee of work that would call self-employed status
into question; and have regard to quality and value for money
in allocating cases. The number of cases allocated to self-employed
guardians in future will be affected by the build up of employed
practitioners.
(d) CAFCASS has capped the hours and work
it will pay for. This is not the case and we have issued no professional
restrictions. What we have said is that CAFCASS has a duty to
do the best it can for all the children and families it serves.
So there does need to be a professional discussion of how finite
capacity is best used, particularly given the large variations
in practice across the country.
(e) CAFCASS budget prevents it allocating
cases. The reason for delays in allocating cases to guardians
has not been money, although that is finite, but the availability
of practitioners to take cases. By definition we cannot require
self-employed professionals to take cases; we are still building
up our employed capacity. However, the reasons for overall delays
in the family justice system go much wider than the time it takes
CAFCASS to appoint a guardian.
(f) CAFCASS Practitioners are not qualified.
Staff from the former guardians and court welfare services hold
social work qualifications; no one is recruited without at least
three years post qualifying experience in social work with children
and families at risk. The overwhelming majority of our practitioners
have considerably more experience than that.
(g) CAFCASS is over managed. Any national
organisation has to have capacity to set strategy, allocate and
account for the budget, manage human resources, develop training,
support the estates and IT infrastructure and manage the performance
of the service. Much of this was done outside the former operational
units. The problem is limited management capacity for the challenges
CAFCASS faces.
THE CURRENT
SERVICE POSITION
3.1 We collect national data at the end
of each month. The latest full data we have is for end March 2003.
At that time we had a live caseload of 12,480 public law and 8,094
private law cases. In the month we received 1,166 public law requests
and allocated 1,113 cases; we received 3,043 private law requests
and allocated 2,912 cases. There is fluctuation in requests during
the year with particular increases in July and January compared
with the previous month.
3.2 We recognise there are problems. At
the end of March we had 639 unallocated public law cases. We accept
also that even where allocation is made it can take too long to
do so. At the same date there were 365 private law cases unallocated
10weeks before the filing date with the courts.
3.3 There are distinct regional variations;
indeed recruitment gaps or sickness in particular teams can have
an important effect on particular localities. In public law London,
the North East, Yorkshire and Humberside, and Wales accounted
for getting on for three quarters of the national unallocated
total in March. At the same time four regions allocated more cases
than they received requests. The position fluctuates month by
month according to demand. In London, disappointingly, whilst
the number of unallocated cases rose compared to February, so
did the numbers actually allocated in a month when demand was
up a quarter. Between 1 April 2003 and 6 May 2003 London received
157 public law requests and allocated the same number.
3.4 The question of delays in public law
cases was the recent subject of Judicial Review. The application
argued that CAFCASS had an absolute obligation to allocate a guardian
to a case immediately and that failure to do so made the proceedings
unfair as a breach of human rights. Mr Justice Charles dismissed
both arguments. The Judge recorded that in defending the application
CAFACASS had accepted the importance of guardians in the proceedings;
that it sought to appoint them as soon as practicable; and that
the welfare of children meant that the sooner this was done the
better. He did however reject an absolute duty for immediate allocation
pointing out the resource implications of having practitioners
available at any time, which he did not conclude Parliament had
intended.
4. ACTION TAKEN
IN 2002-03
4.1 In the last year we have taken the following
action to improve capacity, provide practitioners with relevant
knowledge, and tackle service problems.
— Guardians Contracts. In April 2002
we introduced a new contract structure for guardians, maintaining
the option of self-employment with a unified rate to replace previous
separate professional and travel time rates.
— Increased Fees. From January 2003
we increased the hourly rates in London to £25.50 (up £3);
in the South East to £23.50 (up either £3.50 or £1
depending on the location); and the standard rate in the rest
of the country to £22 (up £2). We continue to advertise
for self employed practitioners, for example recently in the West
Midland with a good response.
— Harmonisation. We have agreed harmonised
terms of payment for our employed practitioners in a range up
to £30,000 with extra in London and scope for up £2,000
additional responsibilities payments on top. Previously typically
there was a cap on progression at £27,300 This is already
having an effect in terms of a better response to recruitment
adverts in areas like London.
— Recruitment. In the last year we
have recruited more staff. We now have 1,239 employed practitioners
compared with 1,125 in April 2002 (including the transferred self-employed
in the April 2002 figure), with a further 32 recruits still to
start. New recruits take time to build up their capacity but the
benefits will be progressively seen in the months ahead.
— Knowledge. We have introduced a Monthly
Bulletin which goes to both employed and self-employed staff which
contains professional, legal and research information, and have
improved the information on our intranet which we will make available
to self-employed professionals.
— Priorities. We have issued guidance
on prioritisation of requests so that, where there are allocation
difficulties the problem is managed and the most urgent cases
given priority.
— Agencies. In London, where the problem
in terms of numbers has been most acute, we allocated 144 cases
to well qualified agency staff. This was unpopular but, without
it, the situation would have been significantly worse. In July
2002 the region received 188 public law requests and allocated
240 cases. Most of the Agency staff have indicated they wish to
have a continuing relationship with us either as self-employed
or employed on the standard terms.
ACTION TO
FOLLOW
5.1 In the months ahead we will benefit
from the following action.
— Further Recruitment. The budget provides
for the whole time equivalent of a further 132 practitioners.
Mostly this will be used to recruit employed staff, but some may
be used to purchase the services of self-employed practitioners.
At this time we are running recruitment exercises for 47 practitioners
across the country.
— Recovery. We have set aside £1.7
million in the budget which will be available for Regions with
particular problems to bid to tackle backlogs and use sessional
or self-employed professionals.
— Convergence. With training the new
contract enables professional to work on either public or private
law cases. This will offer more development opportunities to staff
and increase flexibility in responding to demand.
— Professional Development. We have
contracted with Royal Holloway to develop a modular professional
development programme which will start in the Autumn. An Interim
Programme will begin in the Summer to fill the gap while this
comes on stream. We are recruiting a bank of trainers to deliver
the training. Induction Courses are now in place for staff.
6. CONCLUSION
6.1 CAFCASS is the first to accept that
there are service problems. However, some of the comment is inaccurate
and does not give credit for what we have done and are planning
to do.
Children and Family Court Support and Advisory Service
15 May 2003
Supplementary written evidence submitted
by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
(CAFCASS) (CAF 28B)
FOLLOW-UP
TO THE
CAFCASS EVIDENCE SESSION
The Committee has asked for clarification of
three specific points.
The first is CAFCASS' role as "Children's
Champion", and whether the fact that there is a Children's
Commissioner for Wales means we have a different role in England.
The Minister's context in referring to CAFCASS'
role as "Children's Champion" was the legislative framework
within which we operate. Our responsibilities are set out in the
Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000 and section 12 (1)
limits our responsibilities to family proceedings in which the
welfare of children is or may be in question. Our specific functions
are to:
(a) safeguard and promote the welfare of
children;
(b) give advice to any court about any application
made to it in such proceedings;
(c) make provision for the children to be
represented in such proceedings; and
(d) provide information, advice and other
support for the children and their families.
"Family proceedings" is defined in
section 12(5) and means, in very broad terms, private law cases
where there are disputes about residence and contact, and public
law cases where the state is involved in care proceedings, or
where adoption proceedings have been initiated. As a national
Non Departmental Public Body we are well placed to make a positive
contribution to overall child protection policy, drawing on the
great wealth of professional experience we have. At the Select
Committee hearing I gave the example of our input to policy on
contact. In this capacity there is no difference in how we operate
within England and Wales. However, if Parliament wanted to provide
a formal status beyond our current legislative remit, that would
need to be the subject of further legislation.
There are some differences in our practices
between England and Wales. These relate to the powers of the National
Assembly for Wales to issue regulations, policies and guidance
affecting local authorities, and the impact these have on public
law proceedings in Wales.
Secondly, the Committee has asked about the
handling of cases where children have died.
CAFCASS has mandatory representation on Area
Child Protection Committees (ACPCs) throughout England and Wales.
In all cases where a child dies from suspected non-accidental
causes, and a referral has previously been made to CAFCASS, we
will undertake an internal management review. In accordance with
government guidance, the relevant APCP will determine whether
a "Part 8"review is required and, on request, CAFCASS
will submit a report on the outcome of its review for consideration
alongside the reviews completed by the other agencies involved
in the case. The ACPC will then complete and submit an overview
report to the Department of Health. The CAFCASS Board is not involved
in these reviews, but will be advised of their progress and of
any key recommendations arising.
In both the Plymouth and Birmingham cases internal
reviews have been completed. In addition Part 8 reviews have been
requested and have now been submitted.
Thirdly, the Committee has asked about the MCSI's
recommendation relating to a strategy for knowledge accrual, and
if our budget allows for research in this area.
As we have stated in our response to MCSI's
report, we are planning to set up a practice development unit,
which will encompass research and quality assurance, by December
2003. A key priority for the Unit will be to ensure that we can
understand and learn from the considerable body of research that
already exists, rather than commissioning new research. In the
meantime we have begun to develop a knowledge strategy, which
will look at what knowledge we need to be concerned with (eg external
research and internal practice experience) and how that can best
be disseminated (externally and internally).
In addition, our Research Officer already produces
a quarterly summary of relevant research, which is issued to all
our practitioners. We have also supported external research relevant
to our work, for example as part of the LCD's research funding
programme, and in disseminating work done by the Nuffield Foundation
and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. We also support research being
completed by our practitioners as part of their post qualification
awards.
Jonathan Tross
Chief Executive
5 July 2003
Supplementary written evidence submitted
by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
(CAFCASS) (CAF 28C)
INQUIRY INTO
THE WORK
OF CAFCASS
The CAFCASS Board has seen a copy of the letter
submitted to the Committee of 2 May 2003 (June) written by Judy
Weleminsky, one of it's members.
Following a discussion at its meeting on Tuesday,
17 June 2003, at which Ms Weleminsky was present, the Board felt
strongly that a short letter of clarification should be sent to
the Committee.
We do not think it would be helpful to cover
each point made in the letter but the Board want to record that
Ms Weleminksy's letter was sent without any consultation with
any other member of the Board. The letter does not reflect the
view of other Board Members.
The Board is concerned that the letter focuses
on the past without sufficient acknowledgement of the significant
progress and increasing forward momentum that has been established
since December 2001.
Other Board Members, or myself, are willing
to contribute a different perspective on a range of issues Ms
Weleminsky refers to in her letter if the Committee would find
this helpful.
Tony Hewson
Chairman
June 2003
|
