|
NAGALRO
wrote to its full members on 8 July 2002 to update them about
decisions made by CAFCASS and NAGALRO's work and, most
importantly, to seek feedback from the members.
NAGALRO continues
in its endeavours to maintain
regular and open
communication with CAFCASS through all possible channels, to
articulate the views of its members and to contribute positively
to the creation of a high-quality service for children and
families. It has
made representations to CAFCASS at recent
meetings, including:
·
Susan Bindman, Carol Edwards, Michael
Griffith-Jones and Alison Paddle at meetings with Jonathan Tross
and the CAFCASS Executive Team, during June and July 2002
·
Helena Ware and Veronica Swenson, with
representatives from other professional associations, looking at
professional development issues within CAFCASS
·
Helena Ware and Alison Paddle at meetings for
CAFCASS stakeholders to discuss the Corporate Plan
·
Sheila Brougham at the group set up by CAFCASS to
look at report formats
·
Karen Harris, Ben Grey and Susan Bindman at the
CAFCASS Case Management User Group
·
Liz Hickman at the All Party Parliamentary Group
for Children
·
Liz Hickman and Carol Edwards at the Professional
Induction and Training Working Group.
Allocation problems and waiting lists
The
most pressing issue for CAFCASS has been the increasing waiting
lists of public law cases throughout England and Wales.
In London the waiting list is now
about 140 cases, even after the
allocation of ten cases to each of the newly appointed agency
workers. Areas
that had never previously experienced waiting lists saw them
develop. Devon, Cornwall, Kent, Wales, West Midlands,
Hertfordshire, Surrey, Kirklees and Teeside all reported
increasing delays for children awaiting the appointment of a
Guardian. There were reports of a few cases still unallocated six
months after proceedings were commenced.
NAGALRO's
concern remains that CAFCASS has failed to capitalise on the
benefits of a mixed economy of employment and self-employment. NAGALRO continues to argue consistently that this model can
deliver a flexible and economical service, that it had been
attractive to skilled practitioners for many years, and
that it had, with the exception of London and the Northeast,
provided Guardians for children without delay.
The
crisis in allocation of public law cases resulted from CAFCASS'
own decisions. The
decision to end self-employment in July 2001 created a limbo for
self-employed guardians that endured until March 2002. The
problems were exacerbated by inaccurate and discouraging messages
from CAFCASS managers and the development of a bureaucratic and
distant organisational culture which deterred guardians from
making their professional time available to CAFCASS. Further, CAFCASS made it necessary for self-employed
guardians to attend to 'market forces' and many found that
they commanded greater professional respect, and a higher level of
fees, outside CAFCASS.
Susan Bindman, Carol Edwards and Michael
Griffith-Jones represented NAGALRO at two meetings requested by
the CAFCASS Executive Team to discuss the crisis in allocations of
public law cases in London, on 25 June 2002 and 3 July 2002.
The CAFCASS team was headed by Anne Chan in Jonathan Tross'
absence. At the first meeting Anne Chan set out six strategies that
were being implemented or considered to alleviate the crisis in
allocations. They were:
1. A recruitment drive, described as
much less successful than expected, with only 14 potential
employees on the shortlist
2.
More effective management of the currently employed
workforce
3.
Offers of payment of overtime to employees, of which there had
been virtually no take-up
4.
Training private law practitioners to undertake work in Adoption
cases as Reporting Officers and Children’s Guardians
5.
Recruiting locum staff from social work agencies
6.
Piloting a staff bank of employees.
These
were, in the main, medium-term remedies that reflected CAFCASS’
emphasis on the employed model of service delivery.
NAGALRO’s calculations of the number of cases that could
be allocated as a result of each initiative showed that the impact
was likely to be small. NAGALRO representatives advised
strenuously against option 5, the recruitment of locum staff from
agencies. After
leaving the meeting on 25 June, they learned that 12 agency staff
had been receiving induction training on that day, whilst the
meeting had been taking place.
At
the second meeting on 3 July, NAGALRO emphasised again that it
could not support the recruitment of agency locum staff. Its
forceful arguments were not accepted by the Executive Team.
The
rates to be paid to these agency locum staff are in excess of
those available to either employed or self-employed practitioners. It was reported, but not confirmed by CAFCASS, that the
locums would have contracts to do guardian work in London for up
to a year, at rates of £27–£30 per hour.
The Executive Team advised that it was going to seek
ratification of these appointments by
the CAFCASS Board, but it appeared to NAGALRO that the management
decisions had already been made.
It is NAGALRO’s concern that agency workers do not have
the experience, or the commitment to the organisation, of existing
practitioners.
We predicted that such actions would
alienate the very practitioners that CAFCASS needs to retain –
those with experience and commitment, and that whatever gains are
made in the short term will be lost in the longer term, if
experienced practitioners stop taking allocations, or if employees
leave.
NAGALRO's advice to CAFCASS
Our
letters to Jonathan Tross (dated 21 June and 10 July 2002) set out
what needs to change. The
only way CAFCASS can make an immediate impact on the waiting list
is to act so as to persuade self-employed guardians to take work.
This can only be achieved by demonstrating a genuine
respect for the practitioners CAFCASS wishes to keep.
The
points we highlight as an agenda for change are:
1. Professional
recognition
CAFCASS
needs to develop a child-focussed agenda that recognises the
expertise involved in the professional task and values training
and practice development.
2. A
long-term future for self-employment within CAFCASS
A
need to address the misinformation, e.g. about quotas, the need
for large portfolios of other work and the need for increased
numbers of employed versus self-employed, which blocks the
allocation of cases to self-employed practitioners. Some progress
has been made on this issue.
Self-employed
contractors need to perceive that they have a long-term future
within CAFCASS or they will choose to work where they feel more
valued.
The
complexity of the new forms is a deterrent to self-employment.
3. Appropriate
rates of remuneration
The
issue of travel expenses needs to be revisited urgently.
CAFCASS cannot allocate cases that would cost the
practitioner more than the fees they earned.
CAFCASS
needs to consider, particularly in London and the South East, that
the market value of guardians is much higher than the terms
CAFCASS is prepared to offer.
A
pay review for employees is essential as, in London and the South
East, the salary scales, once again, will not reflect the salaries
available to more experienced applicants elsewhere.
We
advised CAFCASS in the strongest possible terms that in recruiting
agency staff to alleviate the London waiting list, without first
considering incentives to serving practitioners, it was taking a
very dangerous decision that would rebound as more self-employed
practitioners walked away.
CAFCASS
needs to rethink its whole approach and to proceed in a more
coherent and coordinated way, one that makes better use of
resources already available.
Work previously done in relation to training, standards,
complaints, must now be incorporated into any new proposals.
NAGALRO is committed to working with CAFCASS and assisting,
but it is a matter for CAFCASS alone to make effective decisions
that will retain practitioners.
The Executive members of CAFCASS say that they are
listening, but have yet to demonstrate signs of effective change.
In
the meantime, to assist CAFCASS, NAGALRO has continued to posted
information about priority cases in London (prepared by Eva
Gregory, in a form that will not reveal the identity of parties)
for the attention of all London Guardians in the hope that this
will encourage the self-employed to take on another case.
CAFCASS change of policy in allocating to
self-employed contractors
NAGALRO
has queried CAFCASS' interpretation of Inland Revenue policy over
the risks borne by self-employed contractors.
NAGALRO, on the advice of Ernst and Young, Accountants,
considers that insisting upon a fixed proportion of portfolio work
and deterring the recruitment of self-employed contractors have
significantly affected the ability of CAFCASS to allocate work in
a flexible manner. It is our advice that the risk is purely an
individual and professional one and we have encouraged CAFCASS not
to use the Inland Revenue again as an instrument for its own
internal policy decisions.
NAGALRO
expects to be included in the CAFCASS internal audit for the
Inland Revenue later this year.
As
a result of NAGALRO’s representations, Simon Bartrum wrote to
managers clarifying the CAFCASS policy on allocation to
self-employed contractors, dealing positively with some of these
issues. This should
end attempts to set limits (e.g. under 50%) to the proportion of
CAFCASS work that can be included in a self-employed
contractors’ portfolio.
We
are very aware that employed colleagues will be equally affected
by the build-up in allocations, and will have their own views
about the appointment of agency workers in any part of CAFCASS.
We also understand that there are disparities about
overtime, time-off-in-lieu, and overtime payments around the
country, and also about workload expectations.
Recent
developments
During
July and August 2002, management targets for the workload of
employed guardians started to place pressure on colleagues around
the country. Meanwhile, waiting lists continued to grow.
In
London, where fees of £34 per hour plus travelling expenses are
being paid to some agency workers, waiting lists remain at
unacceptably high levels (140 in the last week of August). The
waste of public money that could have been redirected more
effectively to long-serving and experienced contractors, both
employed and self-employed, increases disaffection among
practitioners - who take their skills elsewhere. That the
children, whose cases are brought by e-mail to the attention of
London Guardians, are not getting a service, in spite of the large
expenditure to agency workers, will continue to raise questions.
We
have received reports of the judiciary's increasing frustration
with the inability of CAFCASS regions to supply Children’s
Guardians, and that in one region a Judge has directly approached
a former member of the local GALRO panel (as reported in Community
Care magazine, August 2002).
That
Charles Prest sees a solution to this dilemma in asking Judges not
to trouble managers with attendance at Courts, to explain
why there are no Guardians, seems an unusual way to proceed.
To
go so far as to suggest that Guardians be excused attendance at
directions hearings where much crucial planning takes place
outside Court, is both contrary to Court Rules and inimical to
children’s interests. Financial constraints should not become an
easy justification for the rationing of services, and the erosion
of professionalism, in a system that has worked effectively before
the advent of CAFCASS. A simplistic fiscal defence is particularly
unacceptable in the context of the continuing growth, and
increasing expenditure, in CAFCASS’ management structure.
On
the positive side, we can report alterations to the invoicing
forms, as a result of constructive criticism and suggestions from
a working party that included Alison Paddle and Sue Justice. And
agreement has been reached about payment for the time spent
completing case plans and case closure forms. Further refinements
will be needed, and Alison Paddle will continue to discuss these
with Simon Bartrum.
NAGALRO
has two meetings planned with the Executive Team in September and
October 2002, when policy issues will continue to be discussed. Jonathan
Tross has promised that in November there will be a proposal to
the Board for the enhancement of the fees for self-employed
contractors. Given the recent settlement of a pay claim with
UNISON, we hope there will be an across-the-board consideration of
remuneration for both self-employed and employed practitioners.
Liz Hickman, a NAGALRO council
member, has attended two meetings about training convened by
Yvonne Doyle, a consultant now retained by CAFCASS. Liz
reports a consensus from the group that three days is the
minimum basis on which new public law practitioners can be given
any basic grounding.
Ben Grey and Karen Harris
continue to participate in the Case Management Group convened by
Simon Bartrum. The need for CAFCASS to commit itself to a budget,
to a Project Manager and to a Project Board are seen as the main
objectives before this group can proceed to providing a
user-specification for any future Information Technology system.
NAGALRO's
contributions to the discussions will be posted on the Smartgroup
and the NAGALRO website, to which we welcome further contributions
and debate.
Views
of employed and self-employed members surveyed
A survey of employed and
self-employed members' attitudes towards CAFCASS, and an
indication of future intentions, is being collated by Ann Way and
Karen Harris. We hope to publish this in October. It shows a
continuing dissatisfaction with CAFCASS' general treatment of all
practitioners, and reflects the mixed messages still being given
in several regions about the second-class status of self-employed
contractors. Both
employed and self-employed indicate that they feel undervalued and
that a role of which they once were proud is being diminished and
discredited. Money, and travel costs in particular, feature
prominently as an issue, along with great resentment at CAFCASS
employing agency workers prior to offering any incentives to
current and former, experienced practitioners.
We
are aware from CAFCASS newsletters that Cathy Byrne, the new head
of communications, is trying to make communications from CAFCASS
more accessible and that archives of research and legislation are
being entered on the CAFCASS website, although a much-needed
integrated Internet facility for use by all practitioners,
continues to be resisted.
Though
Jonathan Tross’ timely letters have increased confidence in
CAFCASS’ ability to communicate more openly, members query the
appointment of an accountant to a Board where few bring the
professional expertise about working with children which is
CAFCASS’ prime function; they query the little information given
about the sacking of Ms Shepherd, and they query the discussions
Mr Prest is having about asking the Courts to restrict the
pressure they place on CAFCASS, without regard to the effect on
children who are not receiving a service.
Colleagues
around the country will be aware that two children have recently
died whilst subject to care proceedings: one in Plymouth and one
in the West Midlands. How
these tragedies relate to the inability of CAFCASS to maintain the
previous level of Guardian service remains as yet unanswered, but
these events reflect the worst fears that many will share.
|
