Advice service for care case children “not fit for purpose”

11 November 2010 by

The Commons Public Accounts Committee has published a damning report into the Children and Family Court Service’s (‘Cafcass’) response to increased demand following the Baby P scandal.

Cafcass was established nine years ago to advise children and the courts in family proceedings. It has come under significant criticism in that time. The new report deals specifically with the 34% surge in care cases following the Baby P scandal. The report is damning, concluding that Cafcass is not fit for purpose, taking 27 days to allocate a case and finding itself unprepared for the increase of cases following Baby P’s death.

The child protection system is likely to be significantly reformed following the recommendations of Professor Eileen Munro, who has been asked by the coalition government to lead a “fundamental” review. Part 1 of the review can be found here.

The conclusions of the Cafcass report were:

1.  Cafcass, as an organisation, is not fit-for-purpose. Many areas still do not provide a timely service to the courts, and the average time to fully allocate care cases at 27 days, down from 40 days, is still well above what it should be. Cafcass and the Department should report back to the Committee in a year, when we will expect to see that they have completed firm actions and undertaken rigorous monitoring to achieve the large amount of improvement that is still required.

2.  With duty allocation needing to reduce quickly and substantially, there is a risk that the reductions could result in the scale of unallocated cases returning to the unacceptable levels seen in summer 2009. Cafcass should establish plans with clear milestones for every area to manage the reductions in duty allocation of care cases and take prompt action in circumstances where unallocated cases start to rise.

3.  Cafcass did not see the crisis coming, nor did it have a contingency plan in the event of a significant increase in demand. The specific impact of the Baby Peter tragedy was hard to predict, but the possibility of a sustained increase in cases was a scenario that Cafcass should have planned for. It should prepare robust contingency plans so that it is prepared to act when changed circumstances affect its business.

4.  Cafcass took far too long—until October 2008—to put in place an acceptable performance management framework and is still dealing with the legacy of under-performing staff and low morale. Cafcass’s senior team should develop and implement a clear action plan to address existing and emerging skills gaps, and to raise performance and staff morale.

5.  Sickness absence among frontline staff is unacceptably high and significantly exceeds levels elsewhere in the public sector. Cafcass should develop a comprehensive set of actions to drive sickness absence down to acceptable levels, building on best practice elsewhere in the public sector. The Department should monitor Cafcass’s progress against the implementation plan.

6.  Judges remain satisfied with the quality of reports to the courts, but caseloads carried by family court advisers have been increasing, which brings new risks to the quality of service provided to the courts and families. Cafcass should manage individuals’ caseloads so that staff morale does not fall and the quality of reports to the courts is maintained or improved. Cafcass should also plan for the succession of the many experienced and longstanding family court advisers who are approaching retirement, in order to protect the continuity and quality of service.

7.  Low compliance by staff with important requirements has been a persistent problem, and has undermined Cafcass’s efforts to improve performance. In driving through its Transformation Programme, Cafcass’s top management should take personal responsibility for effectively communicating changes to staff. Managers at all levels should be assessed on their effectiveness in both inspiring staff to comply with corporate requirements and holding them to account for non-compliant behaviour.

8.  The quality of assessments on care cases by local authority social workers varies. Poor quality assessments place an additional burden on Cafcass as the courts must request a new assessment from Cafcass family court advisers if they cannot rely on the work of local authority social workers. The Department should work with local authorities to ensure that they are fulfilling their responsibility under the Public Law Outline to undertake appropriate pre-action work with the family, and to produce good assessments so that cases can proceed without requiring extra interventions or investigations by Cafcass.

9.  It is shocking that Cafcass has not previously collected all the information it needs to manage its workload more effectively. Shortcomings in the Case Management System make compiling trend data laborious but even so, Cafcass must undertake the data collection it needs to manage its business. It should agree with the Department the quality and type of information required and put in place measures to secure it. In addition, the Department should support Cafcass in securing a better service from the provider of its corporate IT systems.

10.  Cafcass has taken too long to secure essential changes, and much of the responsibility lies with top management. Driving through the Transformation Programme while overseeing consistent improvements in the level of service will take strong and vigorous leadership and communication. The Department should regularly monitor Cafcass’s progress in implementing the Programme, holding senior management to account for any delay. Cafcass and the Department should review the robustness of the Programme regularly and take action promptly to resolve emerging problems.

The BBC quote Cafcass as saying they will take “robust action” to improve the service, which affects 140,000 children annually. Its chief executive Anthony Douglas said “Cafcass is fit for purpose because we have absorbed a massive number of new cases in the last 12 months and have improved our productivity by 17%, which is a performance any organisation would be proud of.”

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: