25
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
Acknowledged
We asked MoJ and DfE why the system was not working as well as it should, given that better data sharing should allow improvements, and whether this was evidence of complacency.58 Delays in cases weigh heavily on children, in particular, domestic abuse victims.59 Gaps in the data mean that MoJ …
Read more
We asked MoJ and DfE why the system was not working as well as it should, given that better data sharing should allow improvements, and whether this was evidence of complacency.58 Delays in cases weigh heavily on children, in particular, domestic abuse victims.59 Gaps in the data mean that MoJ and DfE do not have good information on how the service is impacting on different groups of service users, what happens to children at the end of proceedings or outcomes for them after that, particularly for survivors of domestic abuse.60 Different organisations in the system collect data differently. There is no common identifier across the system, for example, to link data sets and follow a child from end-to-end through the family justice system. Many of the limitations in the data are long-standing and well understood, but there is not a joined-up plan to improve how data are collected and analysed. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill contains a provision to introduce for the first time a unique child identifier for data by local authorities. DfE told us that the unique identifier is a “material difference” that will enable tracking a child’s journey through the system although, if passed, that will still take time to implement.61
Show less
Government response AI summary
Acknowledges delays, data gaps, and differing data collection methods, and the potential of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
26
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
Acknowledged
MoJ told us that there are separate accounting officers for each part of the system, and that each could account for the costs for which they were responsible.62 MoJ accepted, however, that they did not know the cost of the family justice system in totality, including spending by local authorities.63 …
Read more
MoJ told us that there are separate accounting officers for each part of the system, and that each could account for the costs for which they were responsible.62 MoJ accepted, however, that they did not know the cost of the family justice system in totality, including spending by local authorities.63 Local authorities, which incur substantial costs before and during care proceedings, do not report their spending on family-justice-related services separately from overall spending on family support and children’s social care.64 MoJ told us that the system as a whole is inherently complex, involving multiple departments, at a national and local level, and that for some parts it is very difficult to isolate a single figure.It cited as an example the systems for public and private law cases that share some resources with the aim of getting best value.65 The ‘Pathfinder’ pilot scheme
Show less
Government response AI summary
Acknowledges the MoJ's statement about separate accounting officers and the lack of knowledge regarding the total cost of the family justice system, including local authority spending.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
28
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
Acknowledged
The new model reduces the number of court hearings and redistributes costs across the system.69 Evaluations from the two early pilots found that costs for local authorities more than doubled as social workers were involved in more cases, while the judicial cost halved due to a reduced number of hearings.70 …
Read more
The new model reduces the number of court hearings and redistributes costs across the system.69 Evaluations from the two early pilots found that costs for local authorities more than doubled as social workers were involved in more cases, while the judicial cost halved due to a reduced number of hearings.70 Cafcass told us that its involvement in private law cases can be expected to increase from around 30% of cases to 80% under the Pathfinder model. It said that achieving this across the country would require around 200 more family court advisers. Wider roll out may therefore depend on reallocation of funding to support the necessary investment in Cafcass and local authority social workers.71
Show less
Government response AI summary
Acknowledges the cost redistribution of the new model and the need for reallocation of funding to support Cafcass and local authority social workers.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
29
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
Acknowledged
MoJ told us that progress with improving timeliness for private law, including in London, will depend on the speed with which it rolls out the Pathfinder model.72 However, despite positive evaluations, wide stakeholder support, and the potential to improve timeliness, progress in rolling out the new model is slow. Pathfinder …
Read more
MoJ told us that progress with improving timeliness for private law, including in London, will depend on the speed with which it rolls out the Pathfinder model.72 However, despite positive evaluations, wide stakeholder support, and the potential to improve timeliness, progress in rolling out the new model is slow. Pathfinder pilots have been rolled out across six family court areas and MoJ has plans to roll it out to another four areas by the end of this financial year. MoJ told us it has an ambition to go “as far and as fast as we can”, depending on the funding it receives because some initial investments and a realignment of resources are required. Roll out also requires a lot of preparatory work, which takes time. Backlogs have first to be reduced and the right staff, particularly in social work, have to be recruited.73 Cafcass added that it would find it difficult to recruit the number of social workers needed for the new model in London.74 66 Qq 10, 21, 49, 50; C&AG’s Report, Appendix Two 67 Qq 16, 50; C&AG’s Report, para 3.14 68 IFC0027; IFC0029; IFC0067; IFC0068; IFC0069; IFC0079; IFC0091; IFC0108 69 Qq 41,50, 52,71-73 70 C&AG’s Report, para 2.20 71 Qq 50, 58; C&AG’s Report, paras 17, 2.20, 3.14 72 Qq 28, 30 73 Qq 30-31, 50-52, 54, 58 74 Q 31 18
Show less
Government response AI summary
Acknowledges the progress of the Pathfinder model roll-out depends on funding and preparatory work.
Read full response →
HM Treasury