Together we can make a difference

1. Together we can make a difference a system-wide target reducing unnecessary delay in care and supervision cases

2. 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 Together we can make a difference

3. ASystem-Wide TargettoReduce Unnecessary DelayinCare Proceedings Together we can make a difference

4. Another Target? What? • Why? Will it make a difference? How? When? I’ve got enough to do without another target Again? Delay? … Nothing to do with me Together we can make a difference

5. 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? Together we can make a difference

6. 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) Together we can make a difference

7. 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 Together we can make a difference

8. The approach … Together we can make a difference

9. 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 .” Together we can make a difference

10. Local Authorities • To 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 Together we can make a difference

11. Legal Aid • To 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-proceedings legal advice in 90% of local authorities • Year 4 and 5: At least 25% of parents in applications issued will have received pre-proceedings legal advice in 90% of local authorities • 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 Together we can make a difference

12. Cafcass • At least 97% of public law cases will have a practitioner allocated by Cafcass. This measurement is taken as a snapshot monthly. Together we can make a difference

13. 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 Together we can make a difference

14. HMCS • To 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 Together we can make a difference

15. 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 Together we can make a difference

16. Revision of the Public Law OutlinePractice Direction Together we can make a difference

17. 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

18. 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 Judicial Office for England and Wales

19. What is happening? 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 • 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 Judicial Office for England and Wales

20. Timetable for the Child • The 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 Judicial Office for England and Wales

21. Forms & Checklist Documents • 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 • 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 Judicial Office for England and Wales

22. 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 Judicial Office for England and Wales

23. 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 Judicial Office for England and Wales

24. Inter-AgencyCase Study from Sunderland & Newcastle Together we can make a difference

25. 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

26. 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. Her Majesty’s Courts Service

27. 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’ Her Majesty’s Courts Service

28. 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 Her Majesty’s Courts Service

29. Outcomes • Marked 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’ Her Majesty’s Courts Service

30. ASystem-Wide TargetLocal Performance Groups Together we can make a difference

31. The role of the Centre • What 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 Together we can make a difference

32. 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 Together we can make a difference

33. 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 Together we can make a difference

34. 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. Together we can make a difference

35. 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 Together we can make a difference

36. 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 Together we can make a difference

37. 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? Together we can make a difference

38. ASystem-Wide TargetQ&A Panel Together we can make a difference

39. 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: • careproceedings@justice.gsi.gov.uk together we can make a difference