0. Care Proceedings Pilot
Overview, approach and progress so far
June 2012

1. Care proceedings pilot
Overview of the approach to developing the tri-borough care proceedings pilot
Key findings
Design of pilot and core workstreams – objectives, activity and challenges
The implementation process and progress to date
What have we learned?

2. Overview of our approach
Analysis of H&F data
Stakeholder workshops and interviews
Design of pilot
Mobilisation
Implementation
The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham commissioned Ernst & Young in 2010 to undertake review and analysis of cases and work closely with a range of agencies to understand the root causes of delays in child care proceedings.
This analysis led to a series of recommendations, outlined in a final project report in March 2011, that would address the root causes of these delays, generate cost savings across all agencies involved and improve outcomes for children.
Between October and December 2011, Ernst & Young were asked to work with stakeholders to scope the implementation of the recommendations, understand some of the constraints and risks, to outline the level of commitment and capacity required to take the pilot forward and develop an implementation plan. Ernst and Young have been involved in the first 2 stages of developing and designing this pilot:
[Presentation title]
06 December 2017

3. Analysis of data The findings of our initial analysis were in line with the findings identified in the Family Justice Review
Based on a sample of 50 cases the average duration of H&F court proceedings in 09/10 was 67.5 weeks (national ~52 weeks)
There is an upward trend in care cases across England and Wales and it is understood that the number of open care cases in London is steadily building. An analysis of LBHF’s closed care cases (from April ’09 to September ’10, see figure 1) highlighted the following:
Average (median) timescale from first appointment to disposal was 62 weeks
There were 2 cases that took more than 3 years and 7 cases that took more than 2 years, stretching the mean to over 67 weeks
Only 21% of cases over the last 12 months were within a 40 wk timescale
The average cost per case during proceedings is estimated to be in the region of £80k.
Our analysis found that when a case arrived in court it was considered to be at ‘ground zero’. The bulk of specialist assessment only commenced once the court process was underway, causing delays whilst the assessments are carried out.
In addition, most expert assessments were carried out in a sequential nature. This is often for practical reasons (e.g. kinship assessments late in proceedings) but it appeared it was frequently due to a lack of an early coherent intervention plan. The delays were often made worse by a lack of early warning when things may be going ‘off-track’. The sequential nature of assessments significantly drives up the time a case will take to travel through the end to end court process. This in turn drives up the associated costs.
06 December 2017

4. Identifying the root causes of delay Stakeholders were invited to discuss the causes for delay in order to begin to understand the root causes
Tri-borough Children’s Services Director
London Borough Hammersmith & Fulham Social Care staff
London Borough Hammersmith & Fulham Legal staff
Royal Borough Kensington & Chelsea Social Care staff
Westminster City Council Social Care staff
Inner London Family Proceedings Court
Principal Registry of the Family Division
Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunal Service
Association Lawyers for Children
CAFCASS
Pervading adversarial culture
Routine ordering of ‘expert’ assessments with no understanding of case cost
No single body accountable for case progression
Delays in legal care proceedings have complex, multiple causes, all of which can be recognised to an extent within the LBHF sample cases. The key findings from the 29th October 2010 workshop and observations from the subsequent study are shown.
Discontinuity in judiciary & local authority staff working on the case
Late allocation of child’s guardian and/or lack of a guardian report
Social workers not seen as ‘experts’ in court
06 December 2017

5. Designing the pilot: Emerging themes Below represents the views and perspectives of a wide range of stakeholders. We had to ensure these were taken into consideration as part of the pilot design and mobilisation.
Resourcing and capacity within the judicial system is a barrier
Great willingness demonstrated for collaborative working
“Need to be careful we don't ‘cherry pick’ proposals: for this to work there must be systemic change.”
“The key to reducing delays is an effective multi-disciplinary team upfront, reducing the need for further expert assessments.”
“We need a clear idea of ownership and timescales in order to move forward.”
“Leaders from all organisations must put their weight behind this and support it.”
Unanimous support from the boroughs for taking all the proposals forward
Ensuring independence is a key element running through all proposals
“The ultimate aim is to reduce delays and improve outcomes for children.”
“Have all agencies got the appetite and capacity to make this work?”
There is general support for implementing the recommendations, but recognition of some very clear challenges

6. Designing the pilot: Involving stakeholders Mobilisation of stakeholders was one of the greatest challenges in developing this pilot. Success depended on joint commitment and ownership across all agencies.
Director Children’s Services
Social Care staff
Legal staff
Family Proceedings Court
District Family Judges
Principal Registry of the Family Division (Care Centre)
Family Drug & Alcohol Court team
Local Authorities
Courts
Central government
Other agencies
Department of Education
Ministry of Justice
CAFCASS
Legal Services Commission
Her Majesty’s Court & Tribunal Service
Family Legal Representatives
Mobilisation: Implementation planning
In consultation with the stakeholder group, the role of EY was to undertake the following activities to support the design and detailed planning of the Pilot:
Determine the scale of the Pilot in terms of number of cases and footprints and determine how lean tools will be able to support the implementation
Work with the courts and CAFCASS to accommodate the pilot in respect of court space, judicial continuity and the availability of guardians
Work with stakeholders to develop more detailed project plans for each work stream to deliver the revised outputs agreed by the stakeholder group including responsibility and accountability for each project within the Pilot
Establish the governance arrangements for the Pilot and to implement the projects where ‘quick wins’ can be achieved including facilitating the first Strategic Governance Board
Identify sources of potential funding, clarify resources secured and resource requirements to implement the projects within the Pilot
06 December 2017

7. Care proceedings pilot
Overview of pilot elements Through the analysis, we identified key workstreams that would reduce delays. Outlined below are the objectives of each workstream
Shared ownership and commitment
Care proceedings pilot
Improving quality of submissions
Agreed set of principles and minimum standards that govern the format and content of written and oral submissions and assure independence
Timely and proportionate use of guardians
Stock of guardians assigned to the court, allocated to cases at initiation of proceedings and time used in a prioritised, proportionate way. Courts and LAs will involve guardians as early as possible during proceedings.
Post-case reviews and shared training
Peer to peer reviews are held every quarter. A range of cases and general emerging themes are discussed.
The aim is to provide feedback to monitor and improve the proceedings system
Manage timescales for the child and judicial continuity
Agreed timescale for the child is a requirement in every case and adherence to this is owned and actively managed.
Ensure the continuity of judges where possible.
Benefits and cost tracking
Tracking of benefits, costs and time on a case by case basis, across all agencies. The intention is that this should provide management information that will reduce excessive costs and provide a measure of benefits.
Elements of the Pilot:
The three boroughs of Westminster, Hammersmith & Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea, ILFPC, PRFD, Cafcass and key stakeholders have agreed to work together to pilot new ways of working to reduce timescales for all care proceedings initiated by the three Local Authorities.
The success of the pilot will be demonstrated by delivering the best outcomes for children and families while reducing the time to complete cases, reducing the number of formal court hearings and reducing the percentage of cases using expert witnesses. This will ultimately result in significant cost savings.
The participants in the pilot will work together to improve the quality of written submissions to the court, by establishing examples of ‘good practice’ and working to develop the skills of social workers and guardians preparing submissions.
Cafcass will ensure that guardians are available once proceedings are initiated for cases included in the pilot, so that the lack of a suitable guardian does not delay court proceedings.
The Case Manager will report progress to the Local Authorities and the Court against the agreed timescale. The ILFPC and PRFD are committed to working with the local authorities to use the information provided by the Case Manager to proactively manage timescales.
The pilot will establish quarterly post case reviews to enable practitioners to reflect on practice and share learning.
The ILFPC will support judicial specialism and continuity by agreeing at the Case Management Conference which cases are a priority for continuity and seeking to reduce unnecessary change for other cases.
The three Boroughs will introduce a performance management framework to track progress and costs. This will be supported by the appointment of a dedicated Case Manager. A timescale for the child will be agreed at the Case Management Conference. In broad terms the timescale will be determined by the best interests of the child and whether the case is likely to benefit from a rapid decision or a more sustained interventionist approach by the Courts.
The three Local Authorities are committed to reducing delay caused by multiple assessments and will work with current providers and the Courts to develop an effective model for delivering consistently high quality multi-disciplinary assessment.
A culture of co-operation and trust will be developed by establishing a shared training curriculum bringing together practitioners from across the family justice system.
Multi-disciplinary assessment team
To have a shared multi-agency assessment team that provides good quality, court-recognised independent assessments, that keeps in line with the timescale for the child.
06 December 2017

8. Challenges and issues Each workstream has challenges associated with it; resolving these required agencies to work together to define a shared approach and solution
Improving quality of submissions
Need to ensure a focus on what determines the quality of submissions, over and above ‘ticking boxes’ and having a prescriptive approach.
It’s a balance between achieving what is required to satisfy the courts versus what is doable and achievable by social workers.
Needs to have high involvement of the judiciary, to meet their needs and the questions they want answered
Timely and proportionate use of guardians
Need to consider how to determine needs and proportionality in allocation of guardians. Should also take into account the legal implications of this on proceedings.
Requires continuous dialogue between CAFCASS and the courts about what is expected of guardians and the allocation mechanism
Post-case reviews and shared training
Will require a clear performance framework and robust monitoring system for outcomes.
Must be independent and have an open environment with peer to peer review and debate.
Ensure that all agencies/professions are able to gain something from attending the training and are viewed as equal participants.

9. Challenges and issues (continued) Each workstream has challenges associated with it; resolving these required agencies to work together to define a shared approach and solution
Manage timescales for the child and judicial continuity
Court capacity to own and manage timescales.
Ability to ensure judicial continuity given court workloads and when cases are transferred to a higher court
Timescale for the child is clearly outlined as early as possible within hearings, including clear indication of key milestones, stage of development and attachment, backed up by research and evidence
Benefits and cost tracking
Ensuring a robust and meaningful baseline of data is gathered to assist measurement of change
Management information is gathered but not used in a meaningful way.
Capacity to undertake this consistently across all parties.
Multi-disciplinary team assessment
Need to consider how cases will be phased into early assessment by this team.
The model should incorporate a mixed economy of assessment providers.
All agencies recognise that the commissioning of further assessments is the main cause of delay. The multi-agency team’s involvement should be with a view to reducing this delay further down the line.

10. Children’s Legal Proceedings
2012 Pilot
Clare Ryan: Case Manager
06 December 2017
[Presentation title]

11. Progress so far The pilot was launched in April 2012 and has had 15 cases issued so far from across the tri-borough, with a further 4 cases to be issued in the next few weeks.
Early indications are positive: 
Dedicated pool of District Judges and Legal Advisors
Dedicated pool of Guardians
Case manager appointed who is managing the bridge between the Local Authorities, Courts and Cafcass
Support and 1:1 guidance for social workers on statements, care plans and chronologies
Good practice guidance and templates developed
Tighter case management is leading to reducing timescales
More focus on what assessments are required and what they will add
Reduced time taken for relative and parenting assessments. Family group conferences required at initial stages
Feedback loop through quarterly post case reviews.        

12. What we have learned
Social work evidence is of a higher standard. Themes and issues are identified
Active contribution from Guardians
Some initial hearings used as the CMC.
Significant time is saved when parties come to Court with proposed experts. Letters of instruction agreed at Court where possible
Robust analysis in statements has led to unnecessary assessments being avoided
Assessments do not always need to take 16 weeks
06 December 2017
[Presentation title]

13. Thank you For further details on the approach, contact
Anjana Jasani
Emily Tuff
For further details on the pilot, contact Clare Ryan,
Pilot Case Manager: