Cafcass’ role in supporting delivery of the family justice reform

Family Justice Review November 2011 Key outcomes:- Establishment of Local Family Justice Board’s independently chaired from judiciary with a focus on performance. A reduction in care duration to 26 weeks Greater onus on understanding where experts add value. Local Authorities to be assisted in developing and delivering robust assessments and care plans with a particular focus at the pre-proceedings stage. Emphasis on judicial continuity and coherent case listings. Development of 5 KPM’s to support the delivery of local performance through the introduction of CMS.

Care statistics: December 2012

Duration of care proceedings 2011-12: average case in each quarter was 54 weeks. 2012-13: Qtr 1 Ave 51 wks, Qrt 2 Ave 47 weeks. Range: 2011-12 Q4 – 36 to 79 weeks 2012-13 Q1 – 28 to 74 weeks 2012-13 Q2 – 30 to 65 weeks

Three weeks in November: Cafcass’ care study 2012 Cafcass commissioned a further study in response to the continuing rise in care applications following the 2009 analysis. 343 cases in sample. 203 (82.5%) of Guardians responded to an online survey in relation to 247 cases, involving 401 children. Included the views of Guardians on: Whether the application was appropriately timed Whether the quality of the LA pre-proceedings work was adequate

Three weeks in November: prior LA involvement Guardians considered applications with shorter period of prior involvement were more appropriately timed Table: children’s involvement with LA prior to application Not before this application Less than 1 year 1-2 years 2-5 years More than 5 years 2012 (384 cases) 19.8% 32.9% 15.9% 21.9% 9.4% 2009 (82 cases) 11.5% 27.8% 10.7% 13.9% 36.1%

Three weeks in November: was the pre-proceedings work adequate? In 67.1% of cases the Guardian assessed pre-proceedings work as being at least adequate In 23.5% of cases the Guardian considered the work was not adequate Key finding: the quality of the pre-proceedings work varied according to the timing of the application

What is adequate? Robust application of the PLO supported by clear robust assessment and analysis of risk, clear care plans, evidence of effective communication with key parties focused on identification of key issues completed pre-proceedings. Less than Adequate More than Partial application of the PLO Application of all essential elements of the PLO Complete fulfilment of PLO 2012 findings 14.4% 45.6% 40%

Cafcass / ADCS court social work model Coventry & Warwickshire Pre-Proceedings Pilot 01 2011 – 05 2013 Pre-proceedings best practice All baseline assessments are commissioned and completed, and evidence base for proceedings finalised. Threshold analysis, chronologies and analysis of capacity to improve parenting key documents Documentation screened by a social work manager before care proceedings are issued Children’s guardian supports the process by aiming to build confidence e.g. between parents and the local authority Final attempts to increase parenting capacity made Parallel planning begins e.g., potential kinship carers identified or ruled out

Pre-proceedings pilot: what works? Early involvement of Cafcass FCA in pre-proceedings: review relevant reports; visit/observe parents and child; attend formal pre-proceedings meeting; engage in case discussion with social worker and family FCA helped promote parental engagement at pre-proceedings meeting FCA seen as more independent than IRO (by adult parties) Enables earlier shared understanding of cases between FCA and LA – earlier identification of outstanding issues Helps with effective judicial decision making

Any questions? policyteam@cafcass.gsi.gov.uk For further information on Cafcass’ research or any areas of policy please contact policyteam@cafcass.gsi.gov.uk Practice questions (i.e. What works in this area?). More detailed questions re research projects can be directed to policy team email.

Table Discussion (15 minutes) How will you put this in to practice? 1. Within your agency what are the presenting 5 challenges that you face in relation to improving pre-proceedings work? 2. Identify 5 key elements that would define 'adequate' and 'good' in relation to pre-proceedings practice in your agency? 3. What can you do in your agency to reduce delay?