A few important reports on statistics / research documents have come out in the last two weeks. I’m afraid that I don’t have enough time to write about each in depth, but I’ll give you the headlines and a link to each and if that whets your appetite, you can read the whole thing.
1. Serious case reviews
Ofsted have published statistics showing that the number of Serious Case Reviews have dramatically increased
A 53% increase on Serious Case Reviews since 2012.
You might think, as I immediately did – is this evidence that the new methods of working aren’t working and that children are paying a heavy price?
It may be much more prosaic than that. The real chance in Serious Case Review policy is that they went from being internal documents to published documents in 2011, and the numbers went down as a result. Public bodies that had been using them to learn lessons and discuss failings were less keen on doing so in published documents – the “washing your dirty linen in public” effect. And then last year as a result of that decline an independent board was set up to scrutinise decisions as to whether or not to hold a Serious Case Review. So the dramatic rise is just that independent board restoring normality.
However, the number of referrals of “serious incidents” to Ofsted did go up. “Serious incidents” can cover incidents that would warrant a Serious Case Review or that are likely to attract media attention. So a greater media interest in family justice might account for the increase.
2. Ministry of Justice Statistics show a 19% reduction in family cases
Click to access court-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2014.pdf
Private law cases dropped by 41% from the same quarter last year, as those cases that had got in just before LASPO have now all just about ended.
The MOJ say that numbers of public law cases has been fairly stable since 2011 (so the figures earlier this year showing a decline was really just the effect of everyone pausing in new cases to make sense of the new PLO requirements rather than any real downturn in demand)
What is interesting is that despite the huge Government push on mediation being the way forward, the number of mediations in the last year decreased by 50% from the level that it was when parents could go and see a lawyer for free advice who would explain the benefits of mediation to them. That’s pretty damning, that a compulsory mediation service has lower take up than when it was voluntary.
3. CAFCASS research on care proceedings
This is an annual follow-up since the death of Peter Connolly, in which Guardians in public law cases are surveyed after the conclusion of the care proceedings and asked some general questions about whether they feel the LA was right to bring the proceedings, the quality of the evidence and whether the proceedings were brought too soon, too late or about right.
Click to access three_weeks_in_november_five_years_on.pdf
The headline from that is that “social workers are taking the right actions to keep children safe”
And that in 84% of proceedings, the Guardian felt that there had been no other choice than to issue proceedings. [Of course, the other way of looking at that is that 16% of proceedings are being issued when they didn’t need to be]
It probably isn’t the most impartial measure either – although Guardians are independent of social workers, the ethos of CAFCASS has been fairly obviously “safeguarding” as a priority over family preservation for a few years now.
If you were to ask parents whether the case should have been brought to Court I suspect 84% or higher would say no. So it rather depends on who you are asking.
The really interesting research would be if you could get Judges to do this survey, keeping it all anonymised.
Cafcass note that the proportion of Guardians feeling that cases were being issued too late rose from 26% to 39% – they fairly note that this could be that delays are getting worse, or that cases have moved to pre-proceedings or that the greater focus on timescales and targets have made Guardians more sensitised to the issue and more critical of delays that would have been tolerable a year ago.
4. The Children’s Rights Commissioner says that legal aid cuts have detrimentally affected children
To which the MoJ have replied “Well it isn’t meant to”
So that’s all fine then.
“Behind the evidence in our research are countless heartrending stories of children and vulnerable young adults whose lives have been seriously affected by their inability to access legal representation,” Atkinson said. “This means, in effect, that they cannot seek, let alone receive, justice. We should not expect children and young adults to face the complexities of the legal system on their own. These systems are daunting enough for adults, let alone vulnerable children and young people.
“The system is so difficult to navigate that it leads to people having no legal representation. That in turn can prevent decision-makers making decisions properly, as well as stopping individuals obtaining the justice they need … Short-term savings to one part of the legal system – legal aid – are simply shifting costs to another, because judges direct that representation has to be funded.”
5. NSPCC research suggests that spending a bit more on family support where children are rehabilitated would be far cheaper than our present arrangement
Click to access reunification-costs-report_wdf104058.pdf
Over 10,000 children are returned home from care every year, however it is estimated that 30-60% of these reunifications fail, meaning children are then moved back to care, at great human and financial cost.
This process costs an estimated £300m, according to a study by the Centre for Child and Family Research at Loughborough University, commissioned by the NSPCC. The costs include social work costs, legal costs, decision-making and placement costs.
However, the researchers found that a £56m investment in providing effective support for families when a child returns from care could reduce the number of reunification breakdowns.
This is an interesting piece of research, and I know that sign up for the pilot scheme was very fast, with it being oversubscribed. If a new approach for support for children being returned home meant that more of them could stay there.
Quick caveat – I think some of the underlying maths is iffy. These are social scientists, not acountants. For example, there are some underlying assumptions that are weak
(i) That it covers s20 not just care
(ii) That a child who comes back into care will remain in care and the costs can be worked out on that basis (whereas some children in s20 might come back into care for a short period)
(iii) That it is fair to work into the costings of the child coming back into care that some children are in residential care (the most expensive type and frankly the ones who are in residential care are likely to be the ones least likely to get turned into successful permanent rehabs)
(iv) That for some reason the estimated legal costs of proceedings is calculated as being less than just the Court issue fee. If a Local Authority can manage to run the whole care proceedings for less than it costs to get the Court to start them off, that’s some wonder economics there
(v) That the figure for failed rehabs is 47%, which is something of a finger in the air taking an average of two other studies (the headline numbers in those studies look extreme, but if a child is in care, goes home, and comes back into care, the “going back into care” might include a short respite period rather than permanent placement away from the family)
But my criticisms are really that the figures are slightly cooked to make the scheme seem even more desirable – I don’t think they needed to do it, the case for better support services is well made out in the body of the report.
This bit some people might find useful – we hear so much about “a low level of support” or “this family need a high level of support” – what does it mean in practice?
The report shows the real actual numbers
This comprises 6 months at a high level (8 hours 15 minutes social worker time plus 50 minutes team manager per month);
3 months at medium level (5 hours and 45 minutes social worker time plus 50 minutes team manager per month);
and 3 months at a low level (2 hours and 35 minutes social worker time plus 50 minutes team manager per month). These activity figures are taken from Holmes and McDermid (2012).
From that – high level of support is just over 2 hours a week of social work time. Medium level is about 1 ½ hours a week of social work time and low level is about 40 minutes a week.
Anything more than that would be accurately described as ‘exceptionally high levels of support’ although when you see the numbers it might not seem to be.
I absolutely welcome anyone trying to find out what the best way to make rehabilitation of children back home work better, and credit to the NSPCC for funding this sort of research. I hope that it makes a difference and that if so it is rolled out nationally.
In order to improve rehabilitation of children back with their families one would have to understand the reasons behind the breakdowns, for one I would say did the parties do enough to make the rehabilitation sustainable, I have a few rehab cases at the moment and I have seen a more over cautious approach taken by Local Authorities and Guardians, sometimes being over cautious could be a problem factor.
When a Judge sanctions rehabilitation one would have thought there should be a strict process in place that is water tight and that caveats should be there if things look like they maybe going wrong, act fast on those problems before it spirals out of control, personally I would like to see a Local Authority or more so an Independent team to simply focus on the Rehabilitation of children before and after, nothing more nothing less, due to case loads of Social Workers one can envisage that when things do start to go wrong they are simply not available to address matters rapidly, that in turn could instigate the breakdown of placements,
When Rehab is taking place which Department deals with the case, Safeguarding, looked after or the person on reception, who knows,
Oh come on, are you surprised? This is not about child welfare, it’s about targets.
If the LA is struggling to deal with mediation/rehabilitation, they can bring in other agencies who would be happy to do the work, fund them and they’ll be there, it’s not so difficult, in the meantime they could set up teams who deal solely in this area of expertise, just like they have the adoption team, the child in need team etc.
It’s all spin, all juggling the books so they come out of this patting themselves on the back for the excellent job they haven’t done
Take a look at X,Y Z v Southend on Sea in April 2014 just published on Bailli. It’s a very robust read. Sorry to post it here, I couldn’t see a way to send it to you off-list, no doubt for very good reasons
Pingback: Research and stats round-up | Children In Law |...