Written evidence from the British Association
of Social Workers (FC 48)
THE OPERATION OF THE FAMILY COURTS
BASW'S evidence to the Justice Select
Committee's enquiry into the Operation of Family Courts
The British Association of Social Workers (BASW)
is the professional body led by and accountable to social workers
in the UK. The Association has almost 13,000 members working in
frontline, management, research and academic positions in all
social work settings across the UK. Our members share a collective
commitment to those values and principles that will secure the
best possible outcomes for children, young people and their families.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. In this submission, we have responded
to all four areas outlined in the Call for Evidence. We would
have liked to have gone into much greater detail to substantiate
some of the points we have raised but this would have meant going
beyond the word limit. We would therefore be very happy to provide
the Justice Select Committee with further information if there
is an opportunity to do so.
2. In recent times, BASW has become
increasingly concerned about the operation of Cafcass in court
proceedings in light of the unprecedented increase in demand for
its services. Over the years, the opportunity for experienced
children's social workers to practice as guardians was always
seen as a very positive choice and an example of good career progression.
Sadly, we have received numerous disturbing accounts from BASW
members working as guardians across the country as well as the
experiences of professionals from other disciplines telling us
that the role is being greatly undermined effecting the quality
of the overall service and ultimately this is detrimental to many
vulnerable children. BASW is not supportive of the measures that
are currently being taken by Cafcass to remedy the malaise and
call for a very different approach to be adopted to uphold children's
interests and rights.
3. BASW is equally extremely concerned
about the recent and proposed changes to legal aid. Whilst we
have a particular interest in the situation regarding independent
social workers acting as expert witnesses, we recognise that this
is one component of the family justice system and it is vital
to look at the impact of legal aid changes across the piece; in
this respect, we have huge concerns about current drivers resulting
in the loss of professional expertise including social workers,
children's solicitors, barristers etc. If central planks of the
system are removed this does not bode well for the welfare of
vulnerable children as effectively they are being deprived essential
safeguards. The proposed fee capping of independent social workers
acting as expert witnesses is ill-conceived and discriminatory.
Many BASW members view this as an affront to the social work profession
given that none of the other expert witnesses are being subjected
to this treatment. This is completely at odds with the political
objective of improving the standing of the social work profession
á propos the recent work of the Social Work Taskforce.
4. In relation to alternative forms
of intervention to family courts, BASW welcomes diverse approaches
to child protection work, particularly models that ultimately
empower individuals, families and their communities. Resources
should not be piecemeal and subject to post code lotteries but
be widely available to all who need them. Essentially, the solution
to the current difficulties faced by family courts being overwhelmed
by applications is to tackle it at the front end of the service
rather than the latter stages; the true potential of social work
must be realised in order for it to be a potent resource, intervening
in the lives of children and their families at much earlier points
averting crisis. Good social work is about effective community
engagement and this is something that needs to be reinvigorated.
Ominously, a team manager in a child protection service told BASW
recently that what he was involved with was not social work.
5. BASW and its members have been
active in the debates about confidentiality and openness in family
courts, aligning ourselves strongly with the voices of children
who made it very clear in the consultation process that they did
not welcome the media's presence in hearings that deal with the
most distressing aspects of their lives. The current change in
policy is another example of this country's woeful record on championing
the rights of children, particularly the most vulnerable. BASW
believes that there are more viable alternatives to the current
model which would be more effective in promoting a better understanding
of how the system operates.
September 2010
PART I
The effect of CAFCASS's operations on court proceedings,
and the impact on the courts of the sponsorship of CAFCASS by
the Department of Education
1. BASW members are absolutely committed
to the principle of children having a voice in care proceedings
and therefore having independent representation from the local
authority in the form of a guardian (section 41 Children Act 1989)
who is there to promote their interests and is directly accountable
to the court. Children's guardians have a unique and vital role
to play in upholding the rights of some of the country's most
vulnerable children which simultaneously maintains the integrity
of a family justice system predicated on objectivity, fairness
and justice. Over the years, many children's social workers have
aspired to become guardians regarding this as positive career
progression usually after gaining substantial experience of local
authority social work in the field of child protection.
2. Sadly, in more recent times, our members
have provided us with a very bleak picture of life as a Cafcass
officer which has led many highly experienced social workers to
leave the organisation rather than compromise their professionalism
or fall victim to work related sickness which in some cases has
led to a premature exit from the profession.
3. In short,
guardians are now rarely able to be appointed given that Cafcass
is operating
on an emergency basis and does not have the capacity to meet current
demand for its services. The introduction of "duty guardians"
has both severely relegated the role and compromised the quality
of service to children.
4. BASW is extremely concerned by the organisation's
strategies to address the current crisis which include recruiting
newly qualified social workers—this beggars belief, particularly
in light of the current shortages of children's social workers
in local authorities where those starting out should be learning
their trade rather than working in a setting requiring those at
a more advanced stage in their career.
5. CAFCASS seems to have lost its identity,
erroneously re-branding itself as a "safeguarding agency"
which does not correlate with its statutory role. In relation
to sponsorship of CAFCASS by the Department of Education, one
of the major weaknesses is the relationship between it and Ofsted
which has had a significantly negative impact on the organisation
given the regulatory body's failure to recognise it's true purpose.
This has led to practitioners being forced to produce copious
data for inspections which is both expensive and a major distraction
from the work that they should be undertaking with children.
6. Many BASW members are now of the opinion
that CAFCASS in its current operation is not "fit for purpose"
and desperately needs to be overhauled in order to meet its statutory
obligations.
7. We would like to conclude this section
with a quote from our submission to the National Audit Office
for their study on Cafcass earlier this year. (Please refer to
appendix A for full document)
"BASW would
like to see a radical change of direction in Cafcass with a much
greater focus on practice, an enabling culture that encourages
creativity amongst practitioners and a reduction in unnecessary
bureaucracy as well as moving away from an organisation that is
too heavily weighted towards management. The service needs to
be redefined in terms of the unique contribution it makes to children's
lives in both public and private law settings. It would greatly
benefit from less micro management and excessive performance measurement
with the onus on providing a qualitative service to children and
their families. In relation to the work of the Social Work Reform
Board, Cafcass once again needs to be an attractive career option
for experienced social workers who wish to remain in practice
and develop their skills to a very high standard."
PART II
The impact on court proceedings and access to
justice of recent and proposed changes to legal aid
1. Whilst BASW recognises the current imperative
to reduce expenditure in public services to tackle the deficit
we would contend that this should not lead to the most vulnerable
members of society being placed at even greater risk; the family
justice system is there to promote children's welfare and ultimately
provide them with a safety net. Our greatest concern is that some
of the current measures will lead to children falling through
this net if vital elements of the system are dismantled, with
tragic consequences.
2. Proposed changes to legal aid are already
beginning to have a detrimental effect on the provision of services
to children and families; for example, current tendering practice
is enabling law firms and solicitors with no expertise in family
law to secure contracts. This is a highly specialist area that
requires practitioners with the appropriate skills, knowledge
and expertise. This breaches the right of children and families
to expert and skilled representation. Ironically, a cost cutting
exercise of this kind will end up costing the tax payer more as
it increases the potential for miscarriages of justice invoking
more appeals and investigations.
3. Whilst BASW is very concerned about the
decimation of services provided by a variety of agencies in the
family justice system, we were particularly exercised by the disproportionate
and unequal treatment afforded to members of our profession in
relation to consultations produced by the LSC and MOJ last year
pertaining to family legal aid. BASW members feel that independent
social workers have been discriminated against in terms of being
the only group of "expert witnesses" to be made subject
to fee capping. Effectively, this proposal will make it untenable
for independent social workers to act as expert witnesses in family
courts depriving the most vulnerable children of their expertise
in the most complex and at times intractable cases. Again, the
intervention of an independent social worker can save both time
and money in helping courts to reach more timely resolutions.
4. We also take issue with the LSC and MOJ
in terms of the consultation process itself being flawed; it failed
to assess the likely impact the proposals would have on the lives
of thousands of children and young people subject to care proceedings;
shamefully, children were not even considered as stakeholders
in the consultations. Secondly, neither the LSC or MOJ collect
data about the actual costs incurred through engaging ISWs as
expert witnesses in family courts and therefore, do not have an
evidence base to make credible arguments about either disbursements
or proposed savings.
5. BASW of course is not alone in its concerns
about the unequal treatment being meted out to independent social
workers acting as expert witnesses in family courts; we have joined
forces with Nagalro, ISWA Ltd. and WillisPalmer to campaign on
this issue. One of the actions of this group has been to make
a formal complaint to the MoJ about the consultation processes
(see letter in appendix B). We were ably assisted in making this
complaint by a Compact Advocacy Officer from the National Council
for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) and what has become apparent
to us all as a result of this experience is the lack of a robust
complaints procedure which sadly does not fill the complainant
with a great deal of confidence.
6. Finally, what we find extraordinary is
the lack of congruence between the proposal to cap ISW fees and
the Government's commitment to improve the status of the profession
through committing £58 million to the recruitment and retention
of experienced child care practitioners who are in such short
supply and who are so badly needed. It is absolutely critical
that the social work profession has a radically improved career
structure in which the skills and knowledge of experienced practitioners
are retained for the benefit of children and families. Independent
social work is a key component of such a progressive career structure
and in many respects, has been the social work success story of
the last decade, demonstrating that social workers themselves
possess the skills, knowledge and confidence to practice innovatively
and effectively and have found a way of freeing themselves from
the constrictions in practice and oppressive environments that
sadly all too often are the daily reality of statutory social
workers.
PART III
The role, operation and resourcing of mediation
and other methods in resolving matters before they reach court
1. It is our contention
that in the current climate, social work has become such a restricted
activity that its true potential is far from being realised which
does a huge disservice to children, families and communities.
The BASW Code of Ethics incorporates the international definition
of social work: "The social work profession promotes social
change, problem solving in human relationships and the empowerment
and liberation of people to enhance well-being. Utilising theories
of human behaviour and social systems, social work intervenes
at the points where people interact with their environments. Principles
of human rights and social justice are fundamental to social work."(IFSW/IASSW,
2001, quoted in BASW Code of Ethics, 2002, p. 1)
2. The beginning of the 21st
century ushered in the Every Child Matters agenda and a heavy
emphasis was placed on early intervention yet nothing could be
further from the truth for social workers in the statutory sector.
The Victoria Climbié Inquiry unfortunately did not result
in positive changes to practice but conversely impeded social
workers in their professional activity by introducing greater
bureaucracy, even tighter control from the centre, more risk averseness
and the devaluation of a profession which was all sharply brought
into focus by the Baby Peter tragedy.
3. What is desperately needed in today's
society, particularly in times of economic austerity where even
more families are going to be under pressure is good social work
intervention. Social work must be given its proper place in a
progressive democracy so that both it and those it seeks to help
can flourish. It is not acceptable for thresholds to be impossibly
high, social work being synonymous with "fire fighting"
resulting in more and more children being at risk and inevitably
clogging up the family justice system. Social workers need to
be re-engaged with their local communities, intervening at much
earlier points in the lives of children and families so that in
the majority of cases, crisis can be avoided. Not only will this
save money but it will also contribute to the project of building
social capital which is arguably the greater investment.
4. Good social work practice is all about
being creative and essentially helping individuals, families and
communities to find their own solutions to life's challenges.
Family group conferencing is an excellent example of empowering
families and communities to become the agents of protection for
their children teaching them important skills as citizens in terms
of social responsibility and accountability. In order to be effective
it requires highly skilled practitioners to facilitate the process.
We absolutely endorse the development of this kind of intervention
and others i.e. good quality and accredited parenting programmes,
family therapy, mediation etc. In essence, these are all examples
of community based social work which BASW would like to see reinvigorated.
5. Nevertheless, we do not believe that
alternative methods of resolution to court will work with all
families and would caution against adopting a "one size fits
all" approach. Sadly, there will always be some extreme cases
where a child's welfare does need to be settled by family courts
in order to adequately protect them from the risk of significant
harm. It is also important to acknowledge that a lot of excellent
practice has been developed by the various agencies working in
family courts which is the hallmark of good, committed professionals
such as social workers, children's solicitors, advocates etc.
We need to ensure that we do not lose what has been achieved but
rather take it forward in any new developments.
PART IV
Confidentiality and openness in family courts,
including the impact of the recent changes in the Children, Schools
and Families Act 2010.
1. BASW members feel very strongly about
the recent changes in legislation and policy that have allowed
the media to have direct access to family courts. BASW's North
Yorkshire Branch put a motion at last year's UK AGM which stated
that: "This AGM deplores the Lord High Chancellor and Secretary
of State for Justice's decision (December 2008) to reject the
views of young people and the policy of his predecessor to change
the law to allow the media to be present during sittings of family
courts and demands that the Government honour its former commitment
to uphold the rights of children and families to privacy when
courts are making decisions about their best interests."
The motion was carried.
2. The u-turn on this issue by the previous
Government is yet more evidence of this country's woeful record
on respecting the rights of children, particularly the most vulnerable;
prioritising the interests of an industry that often profits from
reporting human misery in the most salacious terms is not something
that any of us should feel particularly proud of. Ironically,
since the courts were opened up to the media last year, there
has not been a great deal of interest from journalists which is
borne out by the experience of other jurisdictions:
"Reporters argue that it is not their job
to educate the public and the need to sell newspapers drives headlines
and story lines; researchers argue that commercial imperative
leads to a distorted picture of legal processes in newspapers."
(Family Policy Briefing 5, "Openness and transparency"
in family courts: what the experience of other countries tells
us about reform in England and Wales p.14, Department of Social
Policy and Social Work, University of Oxford.
3. BASW is a member of the Interdisciplinary
Alliance for Children formed in 2009, comprising a large group
of organisations that share concerns about the proposals in the
then Children, Schools and Families Bill to give the media greater
powers in reporting on proceedings and also the previous proposals
to amend S.41 of the Children Act 1989 naming CAFCASS as an organisation
as guardian for the child rather than an individual practitioner.
(please refer to Parliamentary Briefing Paper in appendix C)
4. To conclude, the right to respect for
private and family life (article 8, ECHR) is of paramount importance
to children subject to care proceedings given that the information
being shared about them in courts is of a personal, intimate and
distressing nature. Their confidentiality and anonymity should
not be compromised. There are other ways of helping families and
wider communities to understand the court system which do not
necessarily risk the welfare of children and are arguably are
more effective in providing reliable information i.e. access to
judgements. At one stage, BASW was involved with the family court
information pilot and it is disappointing that the progress of
this work was seemingly halted due to a change of direction in
policy.
Hilton Dawson
Chief Executive (BASW)
17 September 2010
APPENDICES
- A BASW Response
to request for information about the Children and Family Court
Advisory and Support Service from the National Audit Committee
- B Letter of Complaint
to the Ministry of Justice
- C Interdisciplinary
Alliance for Children Parliamentary Briefing Paper
Appendix A
BASW RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
ABOUT THE CHILDREN AND FAMILY COURT ADVISORY AND SUPPORT SERVICE
FROM THE NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE
A: PREDICTING
THE INCREASE
IN DEMAND
SINCE AUTUMN
2008
Whether Cafcass or the Department for Children,
Schools and Families could have done more to anticipate the increase
and its impact on services. Capacity for local and/or national
liaison with local authorities or other organisations about trends
in future demand.
It would have been difficult for anyone to have anticipated
the unprecedented increase in referrals to children's social care
departments following the publicity surrounding the death of Baby
Peter in the autumn of 2008. We know from previous child abuse
tragedies that there tends to be a rise in referral rates but
not for such a sustained period of time as well as such a high
percentage increase. The problem has also been exacerbated by
the recruitment crisis in local authorities in terms of vacancy
rates and the difficulties in retaining experienced social workers.
To some extent, CAFCASS has been experiencing similar difficulties.
Nevertheless, following the Victoria Climbié Inquiry Report
and the advent of Every Child Matters a lot was made about workforce
planning issues yet the nettle in both children's local authority
social care departments and more latterly CAFCASS has never truly
been grasped which has proved to be very frustrating and now at
least is recognised by the work of the Social Work Taskforce which
underlines the need for this in relation to the recommendation
for an Employers Standard and the related health check. Ironically,
the Lord Laming Review on Safeguarding published last year prompted
the Local Government Association to commission research which
was used to argue against one of the proposals claiming that it
would cost too much to implement. In our view, workforce planning
is not simply the remit of CAFCASS and the DCSF; it needs to be
a shared activity involving key agencies such as the Children's
Workforce Development Council, the LGA and the ADCS.
Another unfortunate factor coinciding with the pronounced
increase in 2008 was that CAFCASS had experienced a decrease in
demand during 2007 which is largely attributed to the introduction
of the Public Law Outline. The subsequent predictions were that
the new system would need to be given sufficient time to bed in
before normal referral rates were resumed. One could anticipate
this taking approximately 18 months as this has previously been
the case where other changes have been made to the system. In
that respect, in autumn 2008, one would have expected to CAFCASS
to have been preparing itself for a resumption of demand for its
services prior to the advent of the Public Law Outline as opposed
to the surge in demand following the publicity surrounding the
Baby P case.
Nevertheless, CAFCASS has been in an environment
of constant change characterised by changes in expectations and
imperatives. As safeguarding has increased in profile in the public
domain, more pressure has been exerted on CAFCASS personnel to
act quickly to address the increase in applications without necessarily
matching this initially with an increase in resources (at least,
not until very recently) which left the service severely stretched.
Apart from the Baby Peter case, it is also important for those
concerned in workforce planning to take cognisance of growing
economic unrest and increased poverty as these are known contributors
to family stress and would also account to some degree for the
increase in applications to courts.
Whilst data collection is central to CAFCASS operations
there appears to be little recognition of demographic and geographic
differences across England; very little local information is collected
apart from referral data which is fed into a centralised system
which is shared with local authorities. Practitioners are aware
of local demands and often accept high workloads in order to help
the children and other agency colleagues to move matters forward.
They are not aware of data being collected at a local level being
interrogated to gain a better understanding of local need translating
into improved local service delivery.
B: RESPONDING
TO THE
MAIN RISKS
TO DELIVERY
OF AN
EFFECTIVE SERVICE
Whether Cafcass understood
the causes of the increase in demand correctly.
The impression amongst some of our members is there
has been a lack of a clear strategy to address the main risks
to the delivery of an effective service or at least if there was
one it has not been shared with ground level staff. Practitioners
would like to have seen a more flexible workforce and a contingency
budget to deal with the increase in demand rather than simply
applying even more pressure to first line managers and practitioners.
The service has also been weakened by the inconsistent approach
to recruiting more staff to deal with periods of increased demand
ie on some occasions it is okay to use self-employed people and/or
bank practitioners on other occasions it is not. Alternatively,
agency staff have been taken on who may be very unsure of their
role, require support and assistance from colleagues and subsequently
more input from management which ends up costing more money than
a flexible workforce.
Whether Cafcass's response addressed the most
important issues.
Our members tell us that Cafcass has offered only
limited responses to other agencies such as courts about the current
challenges and consequently, practitioners are left to facing
daily questions from outside agencies about the lack of services.
Consultation with organisations like yourselves.
Cafcass has not consulted directly with BASW about
the present difficulties and some of our members also feel that
their views about the organisation are not being given sufficient
weight.
C: DELIVERING
THE CHANGES
TO SERVICE
EFFECTIVELY SINCE
AUTUMN 2008
Speed of reaction.
Those with whom we spoke described an increase in
pressure to take on more cases, at the expense of diluting the
quality of the overall service by spending less time on cases.
This has caused practitioners to question their integrity in terms
of whether their practice is acceptable which in turn has resulted
in stress. We understand that work related stress is prevalent
amongst employees of Cafcass as well as significant numbers of
staff leaving because of this scenario putting them in conflict
with their ethics. Practitioners feel frustrated at not being
able to offer a good service within these restricted timescales
and because of being overloaded with too many cases. This has
been compounded for some by a "blame culture" that implies
that failure to comply with the prescribed timescales means that
their practice is wanting and inevitably leads to heavy scrutiny
by senior managers.
Communication to staff and partners.
The message from the central organisation to practitioners
has been that time spent in court can be a waste of time which
has left practitioners feeling that the work they undertake in
court is not recognised and valued by their employer. Conversely,
by reduced the amount of time spent at court (or not attending
at all) can create additional work as more time is spent on chasing
up necessary information or having to have additional meetings
etc. At court, all involved parties are present and this is where
significant work is done in moving cases forward. Many of our
members contend that the strategy of reducing time spent at court
has not been cost effective and presents a confusing message to
external agencies given that Cafcass is a court advisory service
providing a crucial service in determining what is in the "best
interests" of children subject to care proceedings.
Deployment of resources
to deliver improvement.
Members have told us that in recent years there has
been an increased focus on the presentation of Cafcass and not
on the actual practice. One of the biggest concerns identified
is that models that have been introduced to meet the needs of
Ofsted rather than concentrating on improving the actual service
being delivered. The performance management framework has led
to supervision being audit based - focusing on how file looks,
if forms have been completed, numbers of cases rather than practice.
There is seldom time to discuss actual cases. This model is time
consuming for both practitioners and managers and does very little
to improve the quality of the service which cannot be cost effective.
A related factor is the decrease of administration support to
practitioners. Practitioners are now responsible for all aspects
of administration which is an inappropriate use of a limited resource
which ultimately runs counter to managing and reducing the demands
for the service if practitioners have to also spend large chunks
of their time completing admin tasks such as filing, letter formatting,
meeting set-ups etc.
The HR strategy deployed to deal with staffing issues
over the last four years has left many bemused; practitioners
report that there have been at least three rounds of voluntary
severance/early retirement options where managers have left with
payouts only to be replaced by expensive agency staff filling
exactly the same posts followed by newly recruited staff eg service
managers/head of service. This does not appear to be cost effective.
D: IMPACT
ON TIMELINESS
OF SERVICE
Changes in speed of: case allocations; Cafcass's
actioning of cases; casework.
The increase in demand has lead to the pressures
already described and consequently lengthier periods of time in
allocating the work. Prior to 2008, unallocated cases were minimal
and manageable with negotiation including with the courts. Now
with the introduction of a duty system as an attempt to manager
the current crisis practitioners are concerned that this masks
the true extent of the difficulties and ultimately places vulnerable
children in a far more precarious position.
E: IMPACT
ON QUALITY
OF SERVICE
Standards of risk assessment
and safeguarding.
There is a perception amongst many practitioners
and other agencies with whom we are in touch that the focus on
safeguarding has become disproportionate to the overall work of
Cafcass. Whilst it is an extremely important element of the work,
it is important to remember that Cafcass does not have the power
to act (eg apply for court orders to safeguard children) and it
is essential that the respective agencies are clear about their
remits and boundaries in order to avoid duplication and confusion.
Practitioners suggest added value could be achieved by greater
partnership working with local authorities which could also be
more cost effective. Often the Local Authority does not agree
with the safeguarding issues raised by Cafcass, therefore a sharing
of eligibility criteria for instance could be advantageous. At
present, a large amount of administration carried out by practitioners
is to assure that safeguarding needs are met.
The duty system.
The duty system is of great concern to many of our
members and colleagues working in this area. Whilst it was introduced
as a temporary measure to manage the current demand for a service
it has severely compromised the service to children in courts
as well as tarnished the reputation of the organisation amongst
other stakeholders including the media. In many cases due to the
shortage of available guardians many children who are subject
to care proceedings are left waiting for weeks for a guardian.
Whilst efforts are made by the duty team to assess risks no one
actually meets the child or makes a thorough assessment. This
seriously diminishes the service given that it is predicated on
the children's guardian being there to ensure that an objective
and thorough assessment of the child's best interests has been
carried out before final decisions are taken about children subject
to care proceedings. Many describe the duty system as tokenistic,
failing to provide a service that accords with the statutory requirements
set out in the Children Act 1989 consequently, placing children
at risk. Some judges have questioned the legitimacy of duty advisors
in courts challenging their credentials and right to play any
part in proceedings. As the model progresses and outcomes are
measured many practitioners argue that the duty scheme is neither
cost effective, safe or appropriate as a model of service delivery.
It leaves us an indefensible position in relation to upholding
the rights of children and our obligations to children enshrined
in international law and conventions. This is something that needs
to be brought to an end quickly to limit the extent of the damage
that is being done. We are aware of a number of highly principled
BASW members who have left the service because of the unethical
position this interim measures places them in.
Quality of Cafcass's casework.
As mentioned previously, practitioners report that
they are not able to offer a good quality service due to the imposed
restrictions and demands on their time. Other agencies now view
Cafcass negatively which contrasts with previous years where the
organisation received praise from others. Practitioners would
like to see statistics detailing how many experienced practitioners
have left and who is helping to train new workers. The work of
Cafcass is not the same as Local Authority social work and practitioners
transferring over report finding it difficult to adapt without
support from more experienced workers. Outside agencies such as
the courts have reported on how the quality has decreased as practitioners
become more pressurised with more cases. It is also relevant to
look at service user satisfaction as practitioners believe this
has decreased with their expectations of a service which cannot
be delivered.
F: OTHER
IMPACTS
Staff case loads.
Our understanding is that as case loads have increased
both practitioners and service managers are struggling with their
current workloads. There is continual pressure to take more cases,
finish them quickly resulting in a serious lack of job satisfaction
and self reproach about poor practice. All team members have been
persuaded over the years to work just a little bit harder to help
clear the back log but have never achieved this so feel they are
struggling to keep afloat.
Meeting court dates.
Once a case is allocated, practitioners work very
hard to meet the court's timescales and on the whole do. However,
delay occurs where guardians cannot immediately be appointed to
cases.
Service user satisfaction.
As reported earlier, the practitioners believe service
user satisfaction has decreased; coupled with this, the Cafcass
complaint procedure has recently been changed, restricting service
users progressing complaints given that there is no longer any
provision of independence from an outside agency. Up until this
year, there were complaints managers in place across the country
but now these roles have gone to the detriment of service users.
Stakeholder goodwill.
This has drained away with the ongoing problems presented
by Cafcass. Sadly, many of our colleagues from other professions
involved in care proceedings are largely disparaging of the organisation.
G: MEASURING
PROGRESS
Accuracy of Cafcass's
performance figures on: allocations, backlogs, case loads, etc.
Practitioners report that the figures presented may
not be accurate and in fact, hide the serious difficulties in
the stated areas. Unallocated cases are often allocated to service
managers who are not case workers and unable to give any time
or attention to these cases. Furthermore, there is no reference
to case work in their job descriptions.
Addressing variations in quality and timeliness
in the 21 Cafcass areas.
They are not sure that there is recognition of differentials
in geographical areas such as shires versus urban conurbations.
From the information we have received there does not appear to
be anywhere that does not have a back log.
Whether Cafcass is on track to clear backlogs.
Again, practitioners tell us that they are exhorted
to work that little bit harder to clear the backlog but because
the situation is constant, this has led to both exhaustion and
apathy amongst practitioners as the expectations are not achievable,
leaving them demoralised.
Any impact, including financial, of Cafcass's
response on your organisation.
BASW provides its members with an Advice and Representation
Service and inevitably where members are working in very stressful
environments they are vulnerable to higher rates of sickness in
the workplace and/or being made the subject of disciplinary procedures
as what is being demanded becomes impossible and those who challenge
or resist may find themselves being made examples of by the organisation.
One very experienced team manager told BASW that more action is
being taken against staff in terms of capability procedures. This
is an unhealthy situation characteristic of oppressive and disabling
top down management.
H: IMPLICATIONS
FOR FUTURE
PERFORMANCE
Sustainability of any
improvements, in the medium/longer term.
BASW would like to see a radical change of direction
in Cafcass with a much greater focus on practice, an enabling
culture that encourages creativity amongst practitioners and a
reduction in unnecessary bureaucracy as well as moving away from
an organisation that is too heavily weighted towards management.
The service needs to be redefined in terms of the unique contribution
it makes to children's lives in both public and private law settings.
It would greatly benefit from less micro management and excessive
performance measurement with the onus on providing a qualitative
service to children and their families. In relation to the work
of the Social Work Reform Board, Cafcass once again needs to be
an attractive career option for experienced social workers who
wish to remain in practice and develop their skills to a very
high standard.
Cost effectiveness of Cafcass's response.
Currently, for reasons previously stated, we do not
think that the current response offered by the organisation is
cost effective if it is leading to such high levels of malaise
amongst some of the most experienced and committed social workers.
Potential contribution of Cafcass's workforce
planning, IT and estate strategies.
Practitioners report that offices are still being
used which are not fit for purpose; health and safety risk assessments
have been carried out deeming some to be dangerous. They need
to be either sold or leased to more suitable businesses. In some
cases, Cafcass could share community based facilities eg courts/health
provision although careful planning and thought needs to be given
to this as one size does not fit all. Some of our members have
raised concerns about the new IT system questioning whether this
offers value for money and how the reorganisation of the Business
Support side of the organisation has effectively led to the loss
of highly experienced administrators. Finally, there is too much
of an investment in trying to meet the expectations of the regulator
through IT systems and performance management framework rather
than maintaining a high quality service that has children at the
centre.
Other evidence about Cafcass
relevant to this study
Is there anything you would like to add that does
not fall within these themes? If so, please feel free to add additional,
relevant material.
BASW wishes to make it absolutely clear that whilst
we have accepted the invitation by the National Audit Office to
participate in this study and in essence, voice our concerns about
the present difficulties Cafcass finds itself in, this does not
mean that we would be supportive of any measures taken to withdraw
what is a vital social work service to children in family courts.
The role of guardians (latterly known as court advisory officers)
is highly specialist and ultimately can make the difference in
determining that the right decisions are reached by courts about
the future care of some of the country's most vulnerable children.
What has happened in the last eighteen months following the publicity
surrounding the Baby Peter case has led to greater pressures being
made to bear on various aspects of the system involved in protecting
children including Cafcass which to some extent has been an unfortunate
casualty. Whilst the National Audit Office is charged with looking
at efficiency we also need to remind officials that there can
be no compromise in terms of meeting the welfare needs of some
of the country's most vulnerable children. However, as we have
stated throughout our submission, we do not believe that the current
working model being operated by Cafcass is conducive to delivering
the aims and objectives of the service and this needs serious
and urgent revision in order that confidence can be restored in
a system that a representative from the MoJ recently told us is
revered and envied by international colleagues.
Appendix B
Julia Bradford,
Consultation Co-ordinator,
Legal Policy Team,
Legal Directorate,
Ministry of Justice
Thank you for your email of 4 May requesting more
information about our complaint.
Our complaint in relation to the Legal Aid Funding
Reforms - Experts Fees Consultation, relates also to the consultation
on Family Legal Aid Funding which was issued by the LSC in June
2009. The two are inextricably linked. Presumably the complaint
we are making about the process of decision making in relation
to the capping of to independent social workers (ISWs) expert
witness fees to £30 an hour outside London, and £33
an hour in London, can be considered as part of the same complaint.
If this is not the case, please also accept this letter as a notification
of a formal complaint in relation to the Family Legal Aid Funding
from October 2010 consultation. That consultation was misleading
in that it was not made clear that this would be the sole opportunity
to influence the ISW fees to be paid from October 2010.
The basis of our complaint is that we had been given
good reason to believe that ISW Expert Witness evidence would
be considered along with all other expert witness fee rates as
part of the consultation which took place in November 2009. Indeed,
we are in receipt of letters from Jack Straw and Lord Bach, then
Secretary and Under-Secretary of State for Justice respectively,
which indicated that this was the case. Further, we were invited
to respond to the consultation, sent the document and included
in the list of stakeholder organisations listed in the consultation
document. We were subsequently told by both the LSC and MOJ that
this was "a mistake" and that the decision in relation
to fee structures for ISWs had already been taken. How can this
be said to comply with the Government's Code of Practice on consultation
from June 2008?
It is upon these facts that we base our view that
criterion one of the Government's Code of Practice on consultation
from June 2008 was breached as the consultation did not take place
when there was scope to influence the outcome. Indeed it is still
far from clear at which stage that point occurred.
Following from this, we believe that criterion 3
was also breached as we have evidence of lack of clarity about
the consultation process, what was being proposed and the scope
to influence the subsequent decision.
Also, in relation to criterion three, neither the
LSC nor the MoJ have been able to produce any evidence of the
expected costs and benefits of the proposals. On the contrary,
they have stated in public (Alan Pitts, Head of Family Legal Aid
at the MoJ, speaking to an invited audience at the office of the
Children's Commissioner for England on March 25 and again at a
meeting at the MoJ on April 20) that they did not have the relevant
figures and could not tell us either what the annual disbursement
was on ISW expert witness reports or how much it was estimated
would be saved. We have, therefore, concluded that criterion 3
was clearly breached.
Further, given the confusion about whether ISW expert
witness evidence was included in the consultation process, we
believe that criterion 4 was also breached as the confusion referred
to above, meant that the consultation exercise was not designed
to be accessible to, or clearly targeted at, those people the
exercise was intended to reach.
We would also refer you to the Compact Code of Good
Practice on Consultation and Policy Appraisal and the Compact
on Relations between Government and the Voluntary and Community
Sector in England. The Compact contains a number of commitments
for Government including the following undertakings:
- To involve the third sector in policy development
at the earliest stage possible on all relevant issues likely to
affect it.
- Inform the sector of progress in developing policy.
- Identify implications for the third sector when
assessing the impact of new policies, legislation and guidance.
- Explaining which matters are open to change as
a result of the consultation and which are not and-
- Providing feedback to explain how respondents
have influenced policy decisions, including where respondent's
views have not been acted upon.
We would be grateful for the department's view of
when any of the undertakings above were carried out in relation
to the two consultations we have cited. We look forward to hearing
from you.
Yours Sincerely,
Judith Timms OBE,
Nushra Mansuri
Philip King and Richard Jack,
and Mark Willis on behalf of-
The Professional Association for Family Court Advisers
and Independent Social Work Practitioners (Nagalro)
British Association of Social Workers. (BASW)
Independent Social Work Agency (ISWA)
Willis Palmer-Independent Social Work Services
24 May 2010
Appendix C
PARLIAMENTARY BRIEFING PAPER
INTERDISCIPLINARY ALLIANCE FOR CHILDREN
CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES BILL: PART
2—FAMILY COURTS
The media have been permitted to attend family court
hearings since April 2009. However Part two of the Children, Schools
and Families Bill now proposes to relax the rules on what can
be published by the media in addition to observing family hearings.
The Bill sets out two stages to implement these measures.
Stage 1 of the Bill would allow some reporting of family proceedings—including
placement proceedings where a child is to be adopted. In practice,
Stage 1 may result in little difference to the current position.
The same is not true of Stage 2. If passed in its current form,
enabling clauses would permit the Lord Chancellor to move
to Stage 2 and to relax the rules on reporting "sensitive
personal information"[86]
. The effect of this could be that "sensitive personal information"
protected in Stage 1 of the Bill, could then be published—unless
a court specifically imposed restrictions.
The Interdisciplinary Alliance for Children is in
favour of making the work of family courts more transparent to
the wider public but is deeply concerned that any relaxation of
the rules on publishing "sensitive personal information"
will increase yet further the likelihood of identification of
children and families in press reporting. There are alternative
methods of improving transparency which would not subject already
highly vulnerable children to a range of further risks.
Furthermore, the enabling clauses would allow
government to introduce measures which would move the family jurisdiction
in England further than any other similar jurisdiction so far
as media access and reporting is concerned. Significant change
would be introduced without proper public consultation, or an
independent external review and adequate parliamentary scrutiny
of whether it would be in the best interests of children and their
families.
The Alliance is also seriously concerned that the
proposals - particularly in relation to future changes under Stage
2—have been tabled without adequate consultation and apparently
without:
- (a) an independent evaluation of the impact
on children, courts and reporting following the changes introduced
in April 2009;
- (b) an evaluation of the impact of the proposed
further changes on children and young people with regard to their
safety, well-being and respect for their privacy;
- (c) a thorough assessment of the impact on
children with regard to their ability and willingness to make
disclosures to professionals about parental ill-treatment, and
their wishes and feelings.
Clinicians who assess children and parents are required
to inform them who may be in court to hear evidence and to read
the expert's report. Interim findings [Brophy, forthcoming][87]
indicate that children and young people are unwilling to talk
openly with clinicians and to trust them once made aware that
a reporter might be in court to hear what they have said in a
clinical setting.
- (d) Consideration as to the consequences
of judicial decision making about children's care and safety,
where this is based on limited/incomplete evidence from children,
and
- (e) A detailed consideration of the delay
and costs implications of a case-by-case assessment of any necessary
reporting restrictions at a time when the government is seeking
to reduce delay and costs in planning children's futures.
Those concerns are heightened by the experience of
some children following the changes introduced in April 2009,
for example:
- A young person subject to care proceedings
and her family were identified following information published
in local and national newspapers. This caused enormous distress
to the family; the young person was devastated by the detail of
her mother's mental health problems, her own childhood problems
and schooling issues. This teenager said had she known about press
coverage she would not have taken her complaint forward. Details
about her childhood— however much she herself is able to
move on—will remain available on the Internet forever.
- A young person refused to repeat allegations of
sexual abuse when informed of the possibility of press in court.
- Talking to children where there are serious
allegations of sexual abuse and parental drug use, or disputes
between two parents, is fraught with difficulties. Clinicians
are concerned that when media access is explained to children
they will withhold vital information, and as one child psychiatrist
argued, "...younger children will not understand, and
may not realise that saying less might be safer"
Pilots providing anonymised judgments, which have
recently started, are a welcome step in opening family courts
in a careful, child centred manner but it is far too early to
move from these, to the provisions of Stage 2 of the Bill. The
Ministry of Justice has yet to evaluate the pilots. Lack of resources
delayed their start, may also limit their effectiveness and any
real likelihood that they will be rolled out nationally.
In conclusion:
- These issues are too important to be the subject
of rushed and ill-thought-out provisions.
- The possible changes envisaged in Stage 2 should
be the result of proper consultation, sensible dialogue and adequate
Parliamentary scrutiny.
- We would urge making no further changes in the
absence of an independent evaluation of media access to courts
post April 2009, and of the provision on Stage 1 of the Bill.
- We also urge the Joint Committee on Human Rights
to scrutinise Part 2 of the Bill.
The Association of Lawyers for Children (ALC)
Professional Assoc. for Family Court Advisers and Independent
Social Work Practitioners (NAGALRO)
Family Law Bar Association (FLBA)
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC)
National Children's Bureau (NCB)
The Children's Society
The Together Trust
The Aire Centre—Human Rights, Family Law and European Convention
on Human Rights
British Association of Adoption and Fostering (BAAF)
British Association of Social Workers (BASW)
Adoption UK
Children's Rights Alliance for England (CRAE)
Office of the Commissioner for Children—England (11 MILLION)
The Law Society—Children and Family Sub-Committees
National Youth Advocacy Service (NYAS)
The Catholic Children's Society (Westminster)
Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
Voice (formerly, Voice for the Child in Care)
Women's Aid Federation—England
Liz Walsh, Editor, Family Law;
Syd Bolton, Children's Law & Policy Consultant.
6 January 2010
86 The Bill defines 'sensitive personal information'
in Schedule 3 under four categories (information given by a relevant
child, information relating to a medical, psychological or psychiatric
condition, information relating to a medical, psychological or
psychiatric examination, information relating to health care,
treatment or therapy. Back
87
The Views of children and Young People regarding media access
to family courts in the context of Article 12 of the UNCRC, (forthcoming);
Office of the Commissioner for Children, England. Back
| 
