together we can make a difference a system-wide target reducing unnecessary delay in care and...

Together we can make a difference

a system-wide target

reducing unnecessary delay in care and

supervision cases

Why are we here?

Lord Laming: Recommendation 57 …

The Ministry of Justice should lead on the

establishment of a system-wide target that lays

responsibility on all participants in the care

proceedings system to reduce damaging delays in the

time it take to progress care cases where these delays

are not in the interests of the child


Note: Lord Laming’s report applied only to England

ASystem-Wide Target

toReduce Unnecessary Delay

inCare Proceedings


Another Target?

Why?


What?

When?

How?

Delay? … Nothing to do with me

Will it make a difference?

I’ve got enough to do without another target

Again?

What is unnecessary delay?

Delay that is not in the interests of the child

Masson’s Care Profiling Study identified nearly 20 delay factors during the case file analysis. Factors included:

LA failure to keep timetable (15.2%)Delay in LA statements (19.3%)Listing difficulties (19.3%)Delay in assessment/report completion (57.3%)Appointment/change Children’s Guardian (12.3%)

So – Does unnecessary delay matter?


The backstory …Children Act 1989

Public Law Protocol (2003)

PSA4 SR04 – 40 week target

Public Law Outline (2008)


Victoria Climbie Inquiry (2003)

Review of Child Care Proceedings in England and Wales (2006)

Lord Laming Report (2009)

Tackling delay …The Review of Child Care Proceedings in England and Wales recommended 5 key areas for improvement:

Helping Families: ensure families and children better understand proceedings

Better Informed Resolution: ensure s31 applications are only made after all safe and appropriate alternatives to court proceedings have been explored

Preparation for Proceedings: improve the consistency and quality of s31 applications to court

During Proceedings: improve case management during proceedings

Inter-agency Working: encourage closer professional relationships


The approach …

Initial Referral

S31 Disposal

IRHS31 IssueLegal

Gateway

Pre Proceedings

Process

Existing NI 60% of core

assessments within 35 days of

referral

LSC - Level 2 pre-proceedings

advice – increase uptake

NI - applications with missing

core assessments

Cafcass – appointment of

guardian

HMCS – timeliness of

cases – 30, 50 and 80 weeks

Baselining 10/11Time for LA to

produce missing core assessment

Baselining 10/11

Time between issue and IRH

Reducing Delay - System Wide Target

Letter before

Proceedings


The shared objective

We will work with our partners to remove the

barriers that stand in the way of prompt and

timely final disposal of individual cases in line

with the Timetable for the Child

the “expectations are that proceedings should be … finally

determined within the timetable fixed for the court in accordance

with the Timetable for the Child .”


Local AuthoritiesTo reduce the number of care and supervision applications where

the core assessment for the child does not accompany the

application.

Good performance …

Good Practice: Core assessments should normally accompany the application

in at least 70% of cases, ie not more than 30% missing


Legal AidTo increase the percentage of care and supervision applications

where the parents have received pre-proceedings “Level 2” legal

advice

Year 1: At least 15% of parents in applications issued will have received pre-

proceedings legal advice in 90% of local authorities

Year 2 and 3: At least 20% of parents in applications issued will have received pre-


Year 4 and 5: At least 25% of parents in applications issued will have received pre-


Data on Level 2 advice shows approximately 11% of cases that have received it do

not result in s31 proceedings but resolve through other safe means


Cafcass

At least 97% of public law cases will have

a practitioner allocated by Cafcass. This

measurement is taken as a snapshot

monthly.


Demand increases starting to stabilise at the current high levels - up 30 per cent in public law and 15 per cent in private law, compared to a year

ago and to the pre-PLO period

Cafcass backlogs reached a peak in the summer of 2009 but have been halved since then, though London remains a serious difficulty for us

We have introduced new Operating Priorities to support the President's Interim Guidance and these are being extended and taken further in the

next 12 months

We will continue to use duty advice schemes, and are aiming to guarantee an early intervention service on all cases, after which cases will be

divided into active and watching brief cases.

We will be developing this model in consultation with the judiciary, HMCS, ALC, NAGALRO, our trade unions and the LGA/ADCS


HMCSTo increase the percentage of cases that achieve a final outcome

for the child within 30, 50 and 80 weeks

26% in less than 30 weeks: Cases suitable for early resolution including

unopposed applications

66% in less than 50 weeks: The vast majority of cases

92% in less than 80 weeks: Those that genuinely need a longer period


Making it work … ??The pre-proceedings & court processes are a key part of the

overall journey that these vulnerable children take from initial

referral onwards

A more intelligent approach that looks beyond court proceedings

and considers events before issue

Closer co-operation across all agencies at all stages in the

process


Revision of the Public Law OutlinePractice Direction


Why is the PLO changing?The PLO came into force on 1 April 2008

A clear commitment was given from the outset to revisit the text to

fine-tune as necessary

BUT …

This is not a wholesale revision of the PLO

The framework of the PLO is not changing

The principles of the PLO remain intact

Judicial Office for England and Wales

Who has been involved in the work?

The work has been led by the judiciary and supported by the

Ministry of Justice

An inter-agency group has also been involved, including

representatives from local authorities and the legal profession

Feedback from workshops in the original PLO pilot areas

An “early process evaluation of the PLO” (Jessiman, Keogh and

Brophy) commissioned by MoJ


What is happening?Staying the same:

Commitment to reduce unnecessary delay

The 4 stages of the PLO remain the same

Hearing types remain the same

Continuing emphasis on robust case management, and effective use of case management tools

Continuing emphasis on need for good advocacy preparation

Cases must progress according to the needs of the individual child

Changing:

More clarity about and greater emphasis on Timetable for the Child

Simpler, streamlined documentation with fewer and more ‘user-friendly’ forms – facilitated by a new application form C110

Reduction to just 6 documents to be filed with application at issue – known as “Annex” documents


Timetable for the ChildThe revisions give greater emphasis to this important principle. Making it clear that the needs of the child as identified through the Timetable for the Child should be the drivers for progressing the case

To be set for each individual child even where there are multiple children in a case

Further guidance to support case management where potential conflict between the inter-relationship of the child’s timetable and the PLO timescales

Where parallel care and criminal proceedings – the timing of the proceedings to be reflected in setting the timetable

Additional guidance about who should provide information on the Timetable for the Child, which should be under constant review by the court especially where new information comes to light


Forms & Checklist Documents Reducing documents to be filed

at issue – these to be known as

the “Annex” documents:

•Social Work Chronology

•Initial Social Work Statement

•Initial and Core Assessments

•Letters Before Proceedings

•Schedule of Proposed Findings

•Care Plan

Fewer, more user-friendly forms – reduced to:

•A new application for care and supervision orders (C110 with the 6 Annex documents)

•More flexible, non-prescribed approach for other forms including LA Case Summary, Standard Directions and the Case Management Order


Who will benefit?

Vulnerable children and families: reduction in delay through streamlined

processes; re-emphasised focus on the child

Local Authorities: simpler, streamlined documents and forms make the

paperwork less time consuming. Greater clarity on Timetable for the Child

Cafcass: Fewer, more informative forms, e.g. application form C110

Legal profession: more flexible and user-friendly case management tools, e.g.

Case Management Order

The court: reduction in documents filed on issue, and forms; clarity on Timetable

for the Child

Court Administration: Having all information in a single application form will

streamline processes


And finally …When??The changes will come into force on 6 April 2010

Where can I find … ?

The revised ‘Practice Direction Public Law Proceedings Guide to

Case Management: April 2010’, and the related forms are available

on the HMCS website at:

www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/479.htm


Inter-AgencyCase Study from

Sunderland & Newcastle


The Public Law Steering Group

Specific Terms of Reference

Agency ‘Decision Makers’ as members

An agreed format for statistical data

Her Majesty’s Courts Service

Terms of Reference•To continue to embed the principles of the Public Law Outline within the Family Proceedings Courts and Care Centres within Northumbria and North Durham.

•To identify, and attempt to resolve, issues that affect the resolution of cases under the Public Law Outline.

•To continually evaluate the Public Law Outline and to consider key risk areas (such as safeguarding issues)

•To consider the wider fundamental issues which affect the speedy resolution of care proceedings and to provide suggestions and recommendations to overcome those issues.

•To ensure that key future changes in legislation and practices, which impact on Public Law work, are identified and delivered.

•To ensure that key messages are communicated to all Public Law stakeholder groups; Steering Group members to take a specific lead within their own area of business and communicate accordingly with their colleagues and counterparts.

•To provide a formal link with relevant Family Justice Councils and to consider any projects or programmes that the Family Justice Council deems appropriate.


Understanding Delay

Tackling delay pre-issue

Development of good practice at ‘source/point of entry’ (FPC)

Introducing Case Progression Officers

Monitoring reasons for delay – the ‘39 steps’


The end-end vision Making the link to safeguarding

Downturn in issue numbers Sharing information with LSCB

Moving away from ‘silo’ thinking Sharing information and knowledge Making the ‘pre-issue’ links Learning valuable lessons from post case

reviews

A platform for continuous improvement Testing new initiatives Alternative Commissioning of Experts Pilot CAFCASS capacity exercises


OutcomesMarked improvement in stakeholder engagement Improved age profile of caseload and reduction in average wait

• eg Sunderland Care Centre - average wait reduced from 81 weeks to 58 weeks; volume of outstanding cases over 75 weeks reduced from 26.5% to 6.1%

An ‘energised’ approach to case management

HMICA ‘We consider the Public Law Steering Group to be an example of good practice’


ASystem-Wide Target

Local Performance Groups


The role of the CentreWhat the Centre can do ….

• Collate local reports into a national report for publication

• Report national performance to the National Family Justice Board

• Share examples of Best Practice and wider guidance

• Take corrective or supportive actions nationally

What the Centre can’t do …

• Address local issues & take corrective action locally

• Establish effective local inter-agency co-operation

• Devise locally tailored best practice and forge local links


Local Ownership Benefits

Taking joint responsibility for delaying factors locally

Working together to overcome specific issues

Looking ahead – spotting potential problems before they occur

Acting as a unified group to provide feedback into the Centre

Identifying Best Practice and sharing across agencies throughout England


How local should the groups be?

The groups definitely need a form of “geographic”

identity …

The groups might be based on HMCS’s network of care

centres throughout England

The groups may need to establish a relationship with

the LSCBs (or Children’s Trusts) within their catchment

area


Who will be members?Core Membership …

Local Authorities: children’s services (court teams) and legal services (family

teams) from the care centre catchment area

HMCS: care centre (family manager), Family Proceedings Courts (legal advisers)

Cafcass: service manager

LSC: area representative

Local parent & children’s lawyers

Additional Members …

Other members as local circumstances demand including possible delegate from

LSCBs in the care centre catchment area.


What is the fit with other safeguarding groups?

Must be complimentary to, and enhance existing arrangements

The court process has traditionally sat outside other safeguarding

activity so no current cross-over in most areas

Local groups should consider establishing a relationship with

Local Safeguarding Children Boards within the catchment area of

the group – the group may want to invite a representative from

their LSCBs

LSCBs will be separately advised about the establishment of the

groups


Who do the groups report to?

Each group will need to provide a commentary on their performance data to the

Centre at least 6 monthly – Best Practice will be for quarterly reports

A template with a worked example will be circulated during April 2010, along with

detailed guidance for the groups – on what “Outcomes” are expected

The reports will be collated and provided to the National Family Justice

Board who will adopt a challenge function

The groups might also establish a relationship with the LSCBs in their catchment

area and consider provision of routine performance reports to the LSCBs


So …. What do you think?How “local” should the groups be?

Do existing groups fully deliver the remit?

What should the groups consider, e.g. the outcomes to strive for?

Do they need clear Terms of Reference, or locally tailored flexibility?

How prescriptive should the guidance for establishing the groups be?

Is the membership about right – what more expertise would be useful?

How should areas where there are several local authorities feeding into a single care centre be addressed? – A single large group? Two or more smaller groups that work together? What should local authorities that use more than one care centre do?


ASystem-Wide Target

Q&A Panel


Thank you … and Good Luck

Further information is on the Ministry of Justice website at:http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/delays-care-proceedings.htm

Related information is on the MoJ web site at:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/careproceedings.htm

….to contact the team:

[email protected]

together we can make a difference a system-wide target reducing unnecessary delay in care and...

Documents

difference slide

care proceedings system

court proceedings

england slide

care cases

delay factors

difference note

number of care