Written evidence from Mark Willis, Managing
Director, WillisPalmer (FC 09)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. This evidence is provided by Mark Willis,
Managing Director of WillisPalmer, an independent sector organisation
providing expert independent social work services to the courts
(and local authorities).
2. WillisPalmer has been established for six
years. It is owned and operated by two qualified social workers
with over 30 years experience in children and family social work.
It provides a range of social work services across the UK including
the provision of expert Independent Social Workers (ISWs) to the
family courts. WillisPalmer has recruited almost 300 ISW's, most
of whom undertake expert social work assessments due to the nature
of their lengthy experience (often having 20 years post qualification
experience) and skills. WillisPalmer only recruits the most experienced
social workers for this role. We operate a rigorous recruitment
process, we quality assure all work and seek feedback from users
of the service. We are one of the largest providers of expert
independent services in the UK.
3. The role of the ISW has grown in the past
10 years. It is not a coincidence that the role of the ISW has
become more central to the family court process since the creation
of Cafcass in 2001. It is now widely accepted that Cafcass has
had great difficulty in managing its workload and they have failed
to retain many experienced social work practitioners. Their pool
of self employed Guardians has been depleted due to a variety
of factors, not least poor pay rates; the very same rates that
the LSC now proposes should be paid to expert ISW's—by definition
some of the most experienced and skilled social workers in the
UK.
4. The role of the ISW in the family courts is
wide ranging and varied. The completion of expert parenting assessments,
assessment of extended family as kinship carers, complex risk
assessments in neglect, domestic violence or sexual abuse cases
make up the majority of work for the ISW. In my submission they
play a crucial role, often saving the public purse by negating
the need for more expensive psychiatric or psychological assessments;
by mediating between parents and the local authority to achieve
a desired outcome or by reducing the need for long term placements
for children through skilled and creative assessments of family
members—thus allowing children to stay in their birth family.
5. This important work is often not undertaken
by local authorities due to a paucity of skilled practitioners
available to them. Similarly, the Cafcass remit for Guardians
is now so restricted that they too are unable to spend the appropriate
time with families to ensure a skilled and detailed assessment
is provided. The ISW has never been more crucial to the lives
of vulnerable children in the family courts and in my submission
they provide a highly cost effective service and in many cases
save the public purse significantly.
6. This evidence can be summarised thus:
The decision of the LSC to cap ISW fees to £30-£33
from October 2010 is ill-informed and will lead to a significant
loss of skilled and experienced ISW's from the family court service
at a time when it can ill afford to lose them.
- The impact of this decision will be a lessening
of justice for the most vulnerable children and families in our
society.
- ISW's fees should be looked at as part of the
LSC's consultation on all other experts in the family courts,
however they are excluded from this consultation.
- The decision of the LSC to cap rates for ISW's
should be reviewed immediately and should not be implemented as
planned on 14 October 2010. The failure of the LSC to understand
the role of the ISW in the family courts and the lack of any evidence
about the supposed savings that will be made makes this decision
all the more unreasonable and ill-advised.
The impact on court proceedings and access to
justice of recent and proposed changes to legal aid
1. This written evidence refers specifically
to the Legal Service Commission's (LSC) decision to cap Independent
Social Work fees from 14 October 2010 to levels currently being
paid to self employed Cafcass officers (£30-£33) which
I believe will have a significant adverse impact on the safety
and welfare of children across England and Wales. It will also
cause significant disruption to the operation of the family courts.
2. The Family Legal Aid Funding proposals, published
by the Legal Services Commission, will affect all children subject
to legal proceedings. The judicial process profoundly affects
the lives of some of the most vulnerable children and families
in England and Wales. Within it, fundamental decisions are made
with regards to the safeguarding of children and their rights
to family life. Such cases are, by the very fact that they are
within the Court forum, the most complex. They require the availability
of reliable and responsible expert opinion which is at an appropriately
high standard to enable Judges and Magistrates to make, with confidence,
such profound and far reaching decisions in the lives of children.
Expert Independent Social Workers are at the heart of this judicial
process but they will be forced out of the family court system
if these proposed cuts are not reversed.
BACKGROUND
3. The LSC consulted on proposed changes to the
funding of Family Legal Aid between December 2008 and April 2009.
The consultation document was entitled "Family Legal Aid
Funding 2010—Representation, Advocacy and Experts' Fees".
The primary focus of the consultation was the proposed changes
to the payment of advocates and the bulk of the substantive questions
were directed to that issue. However at page 81 of the consultation
there was a section headed "Capping Payment Rates for independent
social workers". Without any evidence indicating the total
spend on ISW's or how a reduction in fees would impact upon the
key stakeholders in the family courts, especially children and
families, the consultation concluded "there appears to be
a buoyant market which is supported by work from both CAFCASS
and local authorities. We therefore propose to cap rates for independent
social work expertise at those paid by CAFCASS…"
4. The outcome of the consultation was published
in October 2009. At paragraph 5.8 it stated that the "payment
rates for independent social work will be capped in other family
cases. Following consultation it has been decided that rates will
be capped at the CAFCASS rates for independent social work in
both Rule 9.5 cases and non 9.5 cases. These rates have currently
undergone a review and are now £30 per hour outside of London
and £33 per hour for London".
5. In August 2009 the Ministry of Justice opened
a second consultation on "Legal Aid; Funding Reforms"
which closed in November 2009. That consultation therefore began
before the responses to the first consultation had been published.
Surprisingly, social workers were not mentioned in the extensive
list of professionals that give expert evidence to both civil
and criminal courts (Ref: MoJ "Legal Aid: Funding Reforms"—Consultation
Paper 18/09 Annex B Page 32). This is extraordinary given the
reliance on, and influence of, independent social workers in the
judicial process.
6. The response to that Consultation was published
in March 2010. It proposed that a working group be set up to consider
experts fees and as such the matter remains under consideration.
However, the role of expert ISW's remain excluded from the remit
of this working group.
7. On 25 March, I, together with representatives
of other ISW organisations (NAGALRO, ISWA, BASW included) met
with Mr Alan Pitts, Head of LSC Family Section at the Ministry
of Justice at a pre-organised public meeting in London. Mr Pitts
openly admitted he had no idea what ISW's function was or how
their important work impacted upon the lives of vulnerable children.
He could provide no information on the total spend on ISW's or
how this compared with other experts in the family courts.
8. Subsequently a letter was sent to him asking
him to reconsider the decision to cap ISW fees. On 26 May Mr Pitts
responded to this request stating the LSC would not reconsider
it's decision. The letter stated "it is not possible to provide
an exact estimate of the savings as a result of the capping of
ISW rates...". It erroneously concluded that the qualifications
and experience of ISW's equated to those of Cafcass Officers,
a claim that, in my submission, cannot be supported by the available
evidence (see paragraph 2 "Executive Summary", above).
9. I have been part of a group campaigning against
the decision of the LSC on this issue for the past nine months.
Despite extensive correspondence to the MoJ and LSC our representations
have been met with a refusal to consider the evidence and a complete
lack of understanding regarding the impact this decision will
have on the lives of the most at risk children in our society.
The Impact of Expert Independent Social Workers
in the family courts
10. The role of the ISW in court proceedings
is seen as essential by other stakeholders, specifically, solicitors
representing children and parents, Cafcass Guardians and local
authorities (many of whom share the cost of instructions to ISW's
with LSC funded parties). Overall almost two thirds of the referrals
were from solicitors representing children, parents or other relatives
and are therefore reliant on LSC funding. Over half the referrals
were for parenting skills assessments, with the remainder of the
work being kinship assessments, risk and viability assessments.
These assessments were usually commissioned when the local authority
had failed to provide an assessment themselves (recent unpublished
research suggests 40% of local authorities fail to complete a
core assessment prior to entering proceedings) or if the assessment
was considered insufficient.
The numbers of referrals indicate the acute need
for expert social work opinion. WillisPalmer services mainly East
Anglia and the south east. It is possible to project, therefore,
the vast numbers of ISW assessments that are being undertaken
nationwide in the family courts.
11. The decision to cap fees for such important
work will erode the role of ISW's in the family courts. This may
lead to poor decision making and a shortfall in justice for children
and families.
12. In the context of recent national concerns
about the skill and expertise of social workers (following the
tragic case of Baby P) there has never been a better opportunity
to raise the standard of social work and its value to society.
However, the LSC has capped fees for expert social workers to
levels significantly below that of every other comparable professional.
They have already announced for example that other professionals
(nurses, drug testers and enquiry agents) can expect their fees
to fall between £70-£100 while insisting that expert
social workers be paid £30 in every part of the UK except
London (£33). This iniquitous stance flies in the face of
this and the previous government's supposed commitment to raising
the standard of social work in the UK and encouraging its most
experienced practitioners to remain in practice.
13. I believe that the rates for experts given
by MoJ in Consultation Paper CP 18/09 are a good starting point.
However I see no objective reason why expert independent social
workers are not included in the wide scope of professionals listed.
14. The LSC state that they will be looking at
other experts' costs in the future. To cut the rates to expert
independent social workers now, whilst allowing the high costs
of other experts in children's cases to continue, is inequitable.
15. Any review of experts' costs should examine
all professions at the same time, in order that any difference
of rates paid is based on well informed evidence about the contribution
of any particular professional to a child care case. To do otherwise
is grossly unfair.
16. There must be a clear distinction made between
"standard" social workers and expert social workers
who are checked, quality assured and who have a high level of
experience such as those who work for this agency—the latter
should attract a reasonable fee comparable to other professionals
providing expert evidence.
17. The comparison with Cafcass rates is erroneous,
reflecting a failure to understand the difference in the roles
and expertise involved. This is an approach which does not compare
like with like. Whilst Cafcass is prepared to appoint practitioners
with only three years' post qualifying experience, expert ISW's
typically have between 10 and 20 years post qualification experience.
18. There has been no proper impact assessment
of the LSC proposals on the quality of future decision making
within Court proceedings. There will be heightened risk of future
tragedies for children who are within the judicial system. Such
tragedies will be where children who are, or have recently been
under judicial scrutiny, are subject of further avoidable physical,
emotional, sexual harm or neglect. At the other end of the spectrum,
it will involve children who are mistakenly placed for adoption
when they could have been returned with professional assistance
to their birth families.
19. Whilst I and other interested parties are
quite happy to engage in discussion about appropriate fee levels
for ISW's in a climate of challenging financial conditions, this
decision should be taken in the round with appropriate evidence
available and with a proper recognition of the valuable role of
the ISW and how, if they are eroded from the family courts, this
will negatively affect the lives of the most vulnerable children
and families. I sincerely hope and respectfully request the committee
will consider these issues carefully in its deliberations.
September 2010
| 
