Evidence submitted by CAFCASS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 CAFCASS was set up from 1 April 2001
as a national executive Non Departmental Public Body for England
and Wales to provide the full range of services that support and
represent children in family law proceedings. We bring together
work previously undertaken in three separate services—the
Family Court Welfare Service, Guardians Ad Litem and Reporting
Officers, and the Children's Division of the Official Solicitor.
1.2 In January 2004 CAFCASS transferred
from DCA to DfES.
2. THE STRATEGIC
FRAMEWORK IN
WHICH CAFCASS OPERATES
2.1 We now work within the strategic priorities
set by DfES and contribute to the wider government objectives
relating to children. In this context we will have a role to play
in taking forward the proposals set out in the Children Bill currently
before Parliament and other non legislative measures set out in
the Green Paper Every Child Matters.
2.2 We have contributed to the proposals
outlined in the Green Paper Parental Separation: Children's Needs
and Parents' Responsibilities and we attach at Appendix 1 (not
printed) our response to that consultation.
3. THE WORK
OF CAFCASS
3.1 CAFCASS exists to ensure children and
young people are put first in family proceedings, that their voices
are properly heard, that the decisions made about them by courts
are in their best interests, and that they and their families
are supported throughout the process.
3.2 We operate within the law set by Parliament
and under the rules and directions of the family courts. Our role,
as set out in legislation in respect of family proceedings in
which the welfare of children is or may be in question, is to:
— safeguard and promote the welfare
of the children;
— give advice to the family court
about matters before it;
— make provision for children
to be represented; and
— provide information, advice
and support for children and their families.
3.3 During 2003-04 we responded to:
— 33,803 private law cases (that
is applications for parental responsibility, residence and contact,
where parents have been unable to reach agreement on these matters);
— 13,470 public law cases (that
is applications for local authority care and supervision orders
and applications for adoption);
— Overall these 47,273 applications
involved 73,937 children and young people. Further information
about our workload and demand is given later in the Annex.
3.4 In addition CAFCASS practitioners participated
in over 350 alternative dispute resolution schemes. The MCSI Thematic
Inspection Seeking Agreement, which looked at this element of
our work, found that these could be grouped into seven different
types of schemes. As part of our contribution to the implementation
of the Green Paper we intend to work with others in the Family
Court System to identify common agreed criteria so that schemes
such as the Essex scheme, mentioned in the Paper can be rolled
our more widely and assist families to resolve more issues at
an earlier stage.
We are also a major contributor to the Family
Resolutions Pilot Project and have worked with commitment and
enthusiasm in the development and roll out of the pilots. We would
be very happy to provide more information about our alternative
dispute resolution role.
3.5 At the other end of the spectrum CAFCASS
practitioners supervised 607 new Family Assistance Orders in 2003-04.
These orders provide additional advice and support to families
after the final orders are made by the court. Current legislation
restricts their use to exceptional circumstances only. We are
currently undertaking some internal research on their use and
effectiveness so that we can contribute authoritatively to the
current proposals to review them.
4. ABOUT CAFCASS
4.1 We employ over 2,000 staff, including
more than 1,300 practitioners and we also contracted with over
350 self employed guardians last year. We have continued to recruit
additional self employed guardians to meet our objective of having
a flexible workforce which can respond to fluctuations in demand.
We are the largest employer and contractor of qualified social
workers in the United Kingdom and on average our practitioners
are more experienced than in any other social work organisation.
When CAFCASS started our practitioners undertook exclusively private
law work or exclusively public law work. New practitioners joining
CAFCASS are trained to undertake both types of work and over time
we plan to train and develop all practitioners who have the necessary
skills and experience—and who wish to—to undertake
the full range of work. We call this process convergence and believe
that it will provide us with a more flexible workforce and create
the unified service envisaged when CAFCASS was created.
Our 2004-05 operating budget is £107,830,000.
We work from 125 buildings across England and
Wales (with a further 13 properties where we have interview facilities
only). We also support 260 home workers who we provide with the
same computer facilities as our office-based staff.
Our service delivery is structured through nine
English regions, Wales and CAFCASS Legal. We have a small Headquarters,
providing overall management of our operations and corporate support
on finance, human resources and communications.
Following the Select Committee report on CAFCASS
published in July 2003, the entire Board of CAFCASS was invited
to resign. They were replaced by an Interim Board in January 2004
and a new board was appointed in the Spring of 2004.
The new members are:
Baroness Pitkeathley (Chair); Baroness Howarth
of Breckland OBE; Gillian Baranski; Harry Marsh; Jennifer Bernard;
Richard Sax; Margo Boye-Anawoma; Judith Timms OBE; Erica De'Ath
OBE; Professor Jane Tunstill; Mark Eldridge; Nicholas Stuart (Co-opted
member)
The new Board is rich in experience and expertise
as well as strongly committed to CAFCASS' aims.
A new Chief Executive, Anthony Douglas, took
up his post in September 2004.
The Director of Operations and the Director
of Human Resources left CAFCASS in August and October 2004, respectively.
As a consequence, the new Chief Executive is taking the opportunity
to review the senior management functions at Headquarters and
has made the decision to reduce the tiers of management between
himself and front line staff.
Both the new Chief Executive and the Board have
made service delivery the top priority for CAFCASS. Action to
achieve this includes:
— putting more resources into
the operational teams and regions;
— putting a hold on non-frontline
developments to create additional resources to fund frontline
services and reduce delays;
— putting in place plans in each
team and region to reduce delays in allocating cases;
— reducing the size and functions
undertaken at Headquarters and devolving many functions closer
to the front line;
— making decisions more open and
inclusive; and
— involving all staff and self
employed practitioners in developments and decisions within CAFCASS.
In his first two months in post Anthony Douglas
the new Chief Executive has:
— visited 32 teams around the
country, met with over 600 staff and all key stakeholders, and
initiated programmes to transform the internal culture of CAFCASS,
now set out in a detailed consultation paper;
— changed the decision-making
process so that decisions are made quickly and are widely publicised;
— provided free access to the
CAFCASS Intranet for all self-employed practitioners, and removed
restrictions on the CAFCASS Smart Group as part of making the
organisation more transparent and open;
— contributed to numerous press
articles;
— spoken at a number of conferences
and events to promote CAFCASS work;
— begun discussions with key agencies
in the family justice system about working more effectively together,
including the potential development of joint dispute resolution
teams; and
— changed the Human Resources
functions and policies into a new Staff Support and Development
Service.
5. FIRST YEAR
ISSUES
5.1 Detailed information on the difficulties
associated with the set up and start up were provided to an earlier
inquiry of this committee, which reported on the work of CAFCASS.
We do not intend to repeat the evidence given but this is available
if required. Following the publication of the report CAFCASS prepared
a detailed Action Plan to address the Committee's recommendations
and findings.
We had already commenced work on many of the
areas identified by the committee and found the committee report
positive in reinforcing many of the actions taken. The Action
Plan and progress against it can be made available to the Committee
on request.
5.2 More information about our performance
in our first three years is given in our 2001-02, 2002-03 and
2003-04 Annual Reports.
6. PROGRESS IN
THE LAST
YEAR
6.1 Over the last year we have substantially
reduced delays in the allocation of public law cases, which were
a matter of concern at the time of the previous Select Committee.
6.2 We understand that this Committee is
focusing on Private Law proceedings. We accept that there is still
more work to do to achieve consistent speedy allocation of private
law cases in many parts of the country. The causes of delay are
complex and include a growth in workload demand, staff sickness,
delays and in some places inability to recruit significant numbers
of practitioners.
The measures that we have so far taken to reduce
delay include: developing a staff bank scheme, extending the self
employed contract to take on private law cases, and giving new
staff a mixed caseload.
The most recent performance reports to the Board
and our sponsorship Department demonstrate the progress that has
been made. Progress on Regions not meeting required performance
levels is reported to the Board monthly.
6.5 CAFCASS is set Key Performance Indicators
(KPI) by its sponsoring department. The most relevant in the context
of Private Law cases is our KPI 2, which relates to keeping unallocated
cases to the minimum.
KPI 2—The number of reports unallocated
less than 10 weeks before Court filing date for the month should
be no more than the target of 4% of the workload.
This KPI along with the others is monitored
on a monthly and quarterly basis. The graph below shows the cumulative
second quarter figure of 4.0%:
Performance (target met): Six regions and Wales
met the target for the quarter: East Midlands (0.4%), Eastern
(0%), North East (3.9%), North West (1.2%), South East (3.3%),
Wales (0.5%) and Yorkshire & Humberside (3.2%)
Performance (target not met): Three regions
did not meet the target for the quarter: Greater London (8.1%),
South West (10.6%) and West Midlands (6.4%). While these regions
have a quarterly percentage that did not meet the target, all
show a substantial downward trend from July to September. Greater
London dropped from 14.7% in July to 2.0% in September. South
West dropped from 11.4% in July to 8.8% in September. West Midlands
dropped from 9.7% in July to 2.8% in September.
We also monitor whether regions and teams are
able to meet the filing dates of the courts. In this we continue
to aspire to the target that Private Law reports should be prepared
within 10-12 weeks of the filing date. Teams who are unable to
meet this requirement may make arrangements with their Courts
to extend the timetable for preparing reports. These teams with
extended agreed times will still continue to be counted as unallocated
less than 10 weeks before filing date. Wales is the only region
whose teams have not made these arrangements with their Courts
and work to the agreed timetable. Of the other teams within CAFCASS,
2.5% (two teams) may extend times with the Courts on a case-by-case
basis, 50.6% (41 teams) meet the 10-12 week requirement, 19.7%
(16 teams) have agreed times of 13-14 weeks, 21% (17 teams) have
agreed times of 15-16 weeks and 6.2% (five teams) have agreed
times over 17 weeks.
7. THE WIDER
FAMILY SYSTEM
7.1 We do however believe that some of the
issues contributing to the delays lie beyond the sole control
of CAFCASS. The Magistrates Courts Service Inspectorate, which
undertakes the inspection functions of CAFCASS for DfES, conducted
an inspection into delays. They found that while CAFCASS was focusing
on clearing backlogs of unallocated work there was much more that
could be done with the courts and others in the family justice
system to reduce delays throughout the system, agree alternative
dispute and case management processes as well as agreeing appropriate
thresholds for requesting reports.
7.2 This year the sponsoring Departmental
minister commissioned a report from a consultant, Ernie Finch,
into public law delays in the court system and process. Mr Finch
has come up with a range of findings and recommendations that
point to the need for all agencies in the family justice system
to work together to reduce delays and improve services to families
and children. Most of his recommendations have been incorporated
into the Programme Board on Reducing Delays along with the implementation
of the Judicial Protocol.
This work is led at ministerial level by a group
with representatives from all the key agencies, including the
President of the Family Division. CAFCASS believes that many of
the issues identified in the Finch report on public law also pertain
to private law and recommends that a similar approach is taken
and a protocol developed for private law cases.
8. OUR WORK
WITH FAMILIES
8.1 As stated already CAFCASS has contributed
to the work leading up to the Green Paper and the President's
Private Law framework. We are committed and enthusiastic about
taking the proposed development forward and believe that CAFCASS
is now ready to realise the promise made when it was created to
see in place a far greater range of support services to families
and courts.
8.2 Below are examples of our work, some
of which will be familiar. It is worth remembering, however, that
behind every high profile and heart-rending story that hits the
headlines there is a CAFCASS practitioner working discreetly with
the family to ensure that the interests of the child are put first.
Not always, or even often, an easy role in private law work.
Case Study 1: Allegations of Violence
A father applied for contact of three children
aged 10, five and two. The mother opposed the application, saying
the father is extremely violent and has never shown an interest
in the children. She claimed his application was motivated by
a desire to control her and disrupt her new relationship. This
is a reasonably familiar scenario to us in CAFCASS. Police checks
revealed 20 "domestic" incidents when the couple lived
together. Of these 60% were when help was summoned by the mother,
and 40% when help was summoned by the father. No charges were
ever brought. Since the couple separated 15 months previously,
contact had been sporadic and at times violence apparently broke
out between the parents. The mother is a white UK citizen and
has a history of depression. The father is a second generation
British citizen, his family being from the Indian sub-continent.
Cultural issues added to the complexity of the case.
A great deal of work was done with the family
and three reports for the Court were prepared. A number of supervised
contact sessions were arranged by the CAFCASS Family Court Adviser,
who also advised the Court that a Family Assistance Order would
be useful. The CAFCASS practitioner conducted a number of joint
interviews with both parents, whose attitude softened considerably
over a period of time. The parents began to prioritise the needs
of their children and satisfactory contact arrangements are now
in place.
This case illustrates how most of our work is
not in the report writing, but report writing plus direct work
with children and parents to move a situation on. Many situations
we resolve are initially as intractable as this one. Only a very
small proportion require a court hearing, and even when Orders
are made, this is usually with consent, the parties having agreed
a way forward.
Case Study 2: Complex special needs
D is a seven year old girl with special needs
who has not had contact with her birth father for four years,
apart from letters which may or may not have been received or
opened. He has applied for direct contact. D's mother, with whom
she lives, has two other children, also with special needs. D's
father has a learning disability. In order to be able to make
a clear recommendation to court, the CAFCASS Family Court Adviser
spoke with all the available relatives, a number of local professionals
who are working with the family including a child mental health
professional, and another professional dealing with specific aspects
of the child's learning difficulties. The CAFCASS practitioner
also gathered all known information from local agencies. Direct
communication with D through the use of play and materials showed
her to be apprehensive about her father. The mother opposed direct
contact, even if supervised. The CAFCASS practitioner concluded
that D would benefit from continuing indirect contact with her
father, through letters, postcards and exchanges of photographs.
She recommended work be done with D's father so he could understand
her views, needs and wishes, and direct work with D's mother,
so she could see the potential benefits of some structured supervised
contact in the future.
The case illustrates how many children referred
in private law cases are children in need, and how a full assessment
and focused follow-up work is often required.
Case Study 3: intractable contact issues
Mr Justice Wall (as he then was) gave judgment
in an intractable contact case in January 2003. He followed the
recommendation of the CAFCASS Legal practitioner and transferred
residence of the two children from the mother who he found had
been undermining contact to the father who was unimpeachable.
This is a relatively unusual but by no means
unique outcome. The judge praised the work of our practitioner
who had disagreed in her report with the opinion of a consultant
child psychiatrist whom she had commissioned to provide expert
medical evidence in what was a very complex case.
Case Study 4: Medical treatment—representation
of a very young baby
The tragic case of baby Luke Winston-Jones was
heard in open court by the President on 22 October 2004. Luke
is a baby boy who is approximately nine months old. He suffers
from Edward's Syndrome. Doctor's treating Luke concluded that
cardiac massage and ventilation were not appropriate for Luke
in his condition, and so sought a treatment limiting order from
the Court. His mother, Ruth Winston-Jones, wished for treatment
to be given contrary to the Doctor's clinical judgment. A CAFCASS
Legal practitioner was appointed as guardian ad litem to
protect Luke's best interests. She visited the mother and Luke
in hospital, instructed an independent medical expert and attended
meetings to try to narrow the issues in the case. It is likely
that in the short term there will be more such cases that are
emotionally demanding as well as requiring intensive work from
social work practitioners and lawyers in CAFCASS Legal over a
very short period of time.
The above cases give a mere glimpse at the complexity
and distress that our practitioners worked with in the nearly
39,000 cases that were referred to us last year.
9. CONCLUSION
9.1 Since the inception of CAFCASS much
has been said about putting the additional "S", the
support "S" in CAFCASS into place. The above case studies
demonstrate that some of that is already happening, but as we
have stated in our Green Paper response we believe that much more
can be achieved.
9.2 We firmly believe that as an organisation
we are now ready to put a sharper focus on our role in private
law work. We are keen to work with other agencies and the independent
and voluntary sector to achieve the changes proposed in the Green
Paper and we believe that if our resources can be focussed on
the more complex cases much earlier on in the process that we
will be able to make a real difference.
9.3 We are committed to work with others
to achieve real changes both within CAFCASS and within the wider
Family Courts System so that children can continue to enjoy safe
and meaningful relationships with both parents and wider family
members following separation and divorce. We believe that this
is achievable and in the best interests of most children if they
are to grow up and develop mature adult relationships and ultimately
become parents themselves.
Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
1 November 2004
Annex
CAFCASS WORKLOADS
AND RESOURCES
1. WORKLOADS
| Type of work |
2001-02 actual | 2002-03 actual
| 2003-04 actual |
| Private law requests | 34,704
| 34,761 | 33,803 |
| Public law requests | 13,462
| 13,815 | 13,470 |
| Total requests | 48,166 |
48,576 | 47,273 |
| Family assistance orders | 436
| 582 | 607
|
| Privileged mediation | 4,346
| 4,650 | 3,632 |
| Directions Hearings | N/A
| N/A | 38,750 * |
| | |
|
* Directions hearings involving CAFCASS practitioners undertaking
alternative dispute resolution have resulted in a reduction in
the number of privileged mediations during the last year. This
information was not consistently collated from all teams in the
past.
Note: 2001-02 figures based on six months actual data.
Our workload is determined by the number of applications to the
family courts and is not within our direct control.
2. PEOPLE
| Region | Self employed (headcount)
| Employed staff
in Post (headcount)
| In Post (WTE) |
| Eastern | 40 | 126
| 105.89 |
| East Midlands | 15 |
142 | 125.89 |
| Headquarters | 0 |
87 | 80.6
|
| Legal Services | 0
| 28 | 28
|
| London | 94 | 212
| 187.4 |
| North East | 11 | 132
| 117.38 |
| North West | 23 | 307
| 276.05 |
| South East | 90 | 188
| 151.59 |
| South West | 30 | 167
| 139.3 |
| Wales | 15 | 148
| 127.8 |
| West Midlands | 59 |
212 | 182.93 |
| Yorkshire & Humberside | 11
| 274 | 242.86 |
| TOTALS | 388 |
2,023 | 1,765.69 |
| | |
|
| Staff Group (employed) | In Post (headcount)
|
| Family Court Advisors | 1,307
|
| Service Managers | 126
|
| Directors (inc. Chief Executive) | 5
|
| Board Members | 12
|
| Senior Managers (Divisional Directors, Assistant Directors, Regional, Managers and Business Managers)
| 34 |
| Specialists (Lawyers and HR Advisors) | 41
|
| Administrative Staff (Regional and Headquarters support functions)
| 420 |
| Assistant FCA | 6
|
| Ancillary Staff | 20
|
| Support Worker | 3
|
| Sessional and Bank Scheme | 53
|
| |
Note: based on data at 30 September 2004.
3. FINANCIAL RESOURCES
2004-05
| Budget type | Annual operating budget £000's
| % of total |
| Staff | 66,153 | 62
|
| Contract (self employed guardians) and agency
| 12,399 | 11 |
| Total staff | 78,552 | 73
|
| Running costs | 23,283 |
22 |
| Accommodation | 4,711 | 4
|
| Partnerships | 1,284 | 1
|
| Capital | 0 | 0
|
| Total non staff | 29,278 |
27 |
| Overall total | 107,830
| |
| | |
| 
