NAGALRO
RESPONSE
CAFCASS
MANAGEMENT ROLES AND STRUCTURE
REPLY
TO DISCUSSION DOCUMENT PREPARED BY
Peter Jeffries
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Ø
NAGALRO wishes to preserve and enhance the best
aspects of the existing Guardian ad Litem service.
Ø
CAFCASS should continue the child focused,
practitioner led service that has been established.
Ø
The new management structure must be designed to
ensure a continuing professional ethos.
Ø
NAGALRO supports independence which is secured through
personal appointment by the court.
Ø
A qualified service recognises the balance between
professionalism and accountability.
Ø
Accountability can be achieved through adherence to
National Standards and costed case plans.
Ø
Professional standards can be achieved through
mentoring, consultation, peer group reviews and appraisal.
Ø
A practitioner led service requires separation between
management and professional functions.
Ø
Supervision by line managers is inconsistent with the
professional autonomy needed by CAFCASS practitioners as it is based
on an inappropriate power relationship.
Ø
We expect CAFCASS to be an organic organisation which
is flexible and evolutionary, encouraging all practitioners to reach
their full potential.
August
2000
INTRODUCTION
·
NAGALRO
aims to reflect and represent the views of its membership and is
acutely aware of the short time available to read and respond to the
discussion document written by Peter Jeffries: 'Cafcass Management
Roles and Structures' which NAGALRO members did not receive until
late July 2000. Despite
this being the season when very few members are available for
consultation, a response was required by 21st August for discussion
at the Project Development Group on 5th September 2000.
·
This
response takes account of discussions with all Council Members, at
regional conferences, in Task Teams and allied groups as well as
policy and practice documents and literature on management.
Its perspective is that of the practitioners who constitute
the majority of NAGALRO, four out of five of whom are self-employed.
NAGALRO invites Family Court Welfare Officers, our
prospective colleagues, to consider how these ideas might underpin a
structure for CAFCASS and discuss the implications with us.
·
NAGALRO
questions the wisdom of appointing a senior manager of the Family
Court Welfare Service to undertake this project and to make
proposals about such a fundamentally important aspect of the new
service. Although Peter
Jeffries may have read and consulted widely, his views will have
inevitably have been influenced by his own management experience in
the Probation service. No
detailed information has been given about the consultation process,
who was consulted, what information was received, or what influences
it bore on the document and its proposals.
·
It
is NAGALRO'S contention
that the proposals for management structure and functioning in the
discussion document do not reflect the culture, structure and style
of the majority of stakeholder practitioners of the new service.
In particular, no recognition is given to the opportunity to
improve a service comprising so many self employed practitioners by
enhancing the contractual basis for their services.
·
The
current proposals offer little scope for additional value in a new
service which could build on the more modern, flat structure of the
Guardian service using a high number of practitioners on
service contracts. (The
type of organisation envisaged when the Civil Service review
introduced Next Steps Agencies identified in the Government White
Paper in 1994).
·
The
case for some of the managerial proposals in the discussion document
is not supported by evidence but is based on assertions, a number of
which are inaccurate.
·
The
NAGALRO response to the discussion document aims to address the main
principles that should, in our view, underpin the management
structure and style of CAFCASS.
We intend to highlight the points of agreement and of
disagreement. Conclusions
will be drawn from these underpinning principles which should assist
in the task of designing a more relevant structure for a new
professional organisation.
·
The
starting point for the design of a new service should be to consider
what that service is setting out to achieve.
In other words 'what business are we in?' The
discussion document does not address this sufficiently to underpin
proposals for a structure that will support strategic plans.
The structure proposed would not create a culture within
which workers can flourish and develop in order to provide a highly
skilled and sensitive approach with children and a sophisticated,
expert function within court proceedings.
·
There
is a body of research on issues of management and job design,
including that of
Stewart (1991) who refers to 'job enrichment' which
increases as the scope and responsibilities of the job increase.
The management theories on motivation are many, underpinned
by the work of McGregor
(1960 ), who identified two main approaches to managing people.
One approach treats people as objects, a 'workforce'
and the other sees people as agents to get things done by the use of
initiative, creativity and skill.
It is evident from the research that the higher the degree of
personal control over work, the greater the job satisfaction and
motivation and, consequently, the better the quality of service.
·
NAGALRO
now strongly recommends that the Project Team use the services of an
independent organisational analyst to ensure that a proper and
accurate balance between autonomy and accountability of
practitioners is realised in CAFCASS - which we believe is a
fundamentally important design feature of CAFCASS.
PRINCIPLES
OF MANAGEMENT ROLES AND STRUCTURES
1.
INDEPENDENCE
1.1
The fundamental reason that NAGALRO supported the original proposal
to create a new family court support service was to achieve
independence from Local Authorities.
Guardians function independently, but need to be seen
to be independent. For
this reason NAGALRO does not support the appointment of (the agency)
CAFCASS to individual
cases. We
applaud the clear assertion at the Birmingham Conference that there
will
be
a personal appointment
of
CAFCASS
practitioners to a case by the Court, rather than appointment of
the agency.
1.2
This is contrary to Peter Jeffries'
assertion in para. 5.4
vi) that it is enough for CAFCASS to be seen to be independent.
NAGALRO disagrees, as do many of the judiciary.
Judge Hamilton, the designated care judge for Birmingham,
stated at the recent
Birmingham Conference that accountability to the court was a key
feature for practitioners in CAFCASS and that there must be a named
person appointed for the child.
2.
SUPERVISION
2.1
NAGALRO is aware that this term has not been defined in the
discussion document. However,
supervision, as part of the line management structure, can be
assumed to contain the inherent power for the supervisor to instruct
the practitioner if necessary.
Management must be authoritative when necessary, but
monitoring, appraisal and consultancy can obviate the need for
supervision, as demonstrated by the current practice within the
existing Guardian service.
The discussion paper appears to assert that supervision is a
protection against malpractice.
The most recent, and most notorious examples of malpractice
in public services to children (e.g. the Waterhouse enquiry
in North Wales, Pindown in Leicestershire) all occurred
within management structures where supervision was an expectation.
NAGALRO's conclusion is that supervision provides no
guarantee against malpractice.
High professional standards and accountability, experience,
and equitable service contracts which encourage the high morale and
loyalty of staff offer more effective protections.
2.2
The potential of supervision to ensure equitable workload
management and accountability for using time as a resource of the
organisation can be achieved, in our view, within a well managed,
accountable structure.
2.3
The discussion paper states
on page 9 that "many
Guardians are supervised on a day to day basis by Panel Managers
". This is
incorrect and indeed page 20 of the DoH Manual for Panel Managers
states that " it is not the role of the Panel Manager to
supervise the GAL professionally".
Where Panel Managers have undertaken that role, it is on an
individual and unregulated basis, and does not reflect the intention
of the guidance and regulations.
2.4
The second error is to suggest that Solicitors supervise
Guardians. This is not
so as the Guardian instructs the Solicitor and establishes an
effective professional partnership on behalf of the child.
The relationship is between equal peers with complementary
skills and functions. There
is no hierarchy dividing the
child's Solicitor and the Guardian.
2.5
NAGALRO considers
that the case for supervision of practitioners in CAFCASS has not
been made out or evidenced within
the discussion document.
Certain comparisons may
be made with other services and it is clearly of great public
and government concern when professionals in whom people put their
trust behave improperly
or, indeed,
dangerously. The
discussion paper refers to the reports from Cleveland, Waterhouse
and Utting, but does not explain how line management supervision
could have prevented these tragedies.
The incidence of known malpractice in the Guardian service to
date has fortunately been very limited, but there must be vigilance
in detecting such dangers and taking action to prevent them whatever
the organisational structure -and there will never be any structure
which can offer 100% guarantees.
2.5
The aim of any public service organisation, especially one
providing services for children must be to ensure safe practice.
Many such organisations are struggling to resolve the need
for professional accountability and professional autonomy.
CAFCASS should become a model of how to achieve this balance.
3.
ACCOUNTABILITY
3.1
The case for the CAFCASS practitioner to be accountable for
their actions is overwhelming.
CAFCASS practitioners will have a range of accountability but
must be seen to be accountable for their duty to children and to the
court in the first instance.
There must be demonstrably high professional standards in
CAFCASS.
3.2
Currently, the work of Guardians is closely scrutinised by
the court and is predominantly
held in high esteem by Judges and Magistrates.
Guardians operate within National Standards which are
verified through a programme of appraisals, performance reviews and
short-term appointments for self-employed Guardians
when standards are not being fully met.
The uniformity of this system can be strengthened to further
improve accountability for the standard of service delivered
nationally.
3.2.(a
) Public accountability must include responsibility for the
public purse and every CAFCASS practitioner must be able to
demonstrate an efficient use of time.
The use of professional time is the greatest cost in the
current Guardian service.
NAGALRO endorses the need for CAFCASS practitioners to plan
their work according to the specific demands of the proceedings and
to do this in such a way that it is matched to need with a
transparent declaration of time spent that can be justified.
There are transparent systems for recording time for
self employed Guardians, combined on many panels with specific IT
systems for task based time recording which could be used and
improved within the new service.
NAGALRO recommends that the expansion of these IT systems to
enable managers to receive more precise estimations of spending on
individual cases ( costed case plans).
This will ensure demonstrably that accountability for the use
of resources can be more effectively achieved.
3.3
NAGALRO asserts that practioners in CAFCASS representing
children in Public Law must be able to continue to be accountable in
these ways but refutes Peter Jeffries' assumption, para.
5.2 vi, that this can only
be achieved through a line management structure.
4.
AUTONOMY
4.1
Autonomy is defined as 'self government'.
In NAGALRO's view, this
should be seen as a way in which practitioners can be seen to be
responsible for their actions and can, therefore, be held
accountable for those actions.
There are significant numbers of current Guardians who have
considerable management experience at a senior level in local
authorities and the independent sector.
CAFCASS must ensure the retention of such people, who are
unlikely to return to a structure they have already left.
The success and credibility of the new service will
also depend on the continued recruitment of people with similar
levels of experience who will have the ability to 'self govern' or
self manage to a high level -obviating the need for hierarchical
management.
4.2
NAGALRO views the opportunity to create a practitioner led,
flattened organisational structure as a viable alternative to an
expensive, top - heavy management structure where practitioners are
not sufficiently trusted to make professional judgements and
decisions. NAGALRO
wants to see the money being put as close as possible to service
delivery in a modernised public service.
5.
EMPOWERMENT
5.1
Empowerment is a significant aspect of professional
responsibility, but the concept is omitted from the discussion
document. A
professional work force needs to be empowered to plan and account
for the amount of work undertaken on each case, to be given scope to
negotiate with families or other professional bodies in order to
influence the eventual outcomes
and to be given the opportunity to make their own considered
recommendation to the Court.
NAGALRO considers this is essential to achieve credibility
for the service which is received by consumers.
6.
QUALITY
6.1
Quality needs to be understood within the context of the
systems that achieve quality including Quality Control and Total
Quality Management (TQM).
The essential characteristic of the latter, according to
Deming (Neave 1990) is that quality is in the hands of
everyone in the enterprise and focuses on changing
organisational culture and putting trust in staff.
Deming's 'fourteen points' are still considered as a classic
remedy for TQM. Peter
Jeffries' discussion paper does not contain convincing
recommendations for the achievement of a high quality service.
The Family Court Welfare Service no doubt, like NAGALRO,
contends that their service does have high standards and is of high
quality.
NAGALRO asserts that the Guardian service is already a child focused
service. Comments
from children have been recorded in various research projects,
including those of (Jean McCausland, Clark and Sinclair and Maria
Rueggar, which demonstrate that children appreciate the attention
given to them by Guardians.
Those in the judiciary have also commended our focus on the
needs of children, including Dame
Elizabeth Butler- Sloss who referred to the Guardian service as
" indispensable in the work it does on behalf of children who
have the greatest need of help and who come before the family
courts." In the
Guardian service this quality stems from the satisfaction of
experienced practitioners who are highly motivated by their autonomy
and independence and are able to act in a professional way that is
underpinned by their value base.
They do not suffer the conflicts and dilemmas that dog many
professionals in more bureaucratic services such as education,
probation and social care.
The challenge is to ensure that this level of quality is
cost-effective.
6.2
Quality Control relies on the comparison of a finished
product against its specification.
It allows problems to be spotted but can be wasteful as '
prevention is better than cure'.
6.3
Quality Assurance is an improvement on Quality Control as it
aims to ensure that the service meets the required standards.
In such a system, monitoring and internal audits allow
problems to be identified and action taken so that standards are
met. If
necessary, standards can be revised to better reflect what is
required by changes in policy or legislation or changes in demand
for the service. NAGALRO
endorses a system of Quality Assurance enhanced by close monitoring
of performance and 'spot checks' or additional audits of the
practitioner's work imposed when necessary.
7.
COMPLAINTS
7.1
A complaints procedure is compatible with Quality Control as
it comes in to effect whenever something is perceived to go wrong.
The Guardian service has evolved a complaints procedure which
is reasonably well tried and aims to ensure a sophisticated level of
practice at different levels.
In NAGALRO's view any complaint against the work of a CAFCASS
practitioner should be informally investigated by the Area Manager
with a view to conciliation.
A more formal investigation to ensure an objective process to
achieve complaint resolution and/ or impartial investigation forms
the next stage.
7.2
NAGALRO
is in agreement with the Panel Manager's Association that there is a
need for a "clear, simple, speedy complaints procedure that can
be easily accessed by anyone affected by the service".
We also agree that there should be "an appeals mechanism
that involves relevant stakeholders; a clear policy to enable the
Agency to offer, where appropriate, financial redress and
compensation as well as
local protocols to deal with inter-professional
disputes". Peter
Jeffries' paper is inconclusive on this point at para. 6.9 ii), but
NAGALRO asserts that CAFCASS should be able to provide this system
with the inclusion of independent officers to a set of nationally
agreed and enforceable procedures.
8.
ECONOMY
8.1
A significant ommission in the discussion document is the
absence of costing of the suggested management models.
Three services are to be joined without any increase in
funding over all. The
cost of the average care case of Guardians has been rising on
average and this contrasts with the resource driven, time limited
practices in the Court Welfare Service which
ensures that
reports are produced within specific time scales and each officer to
complete a quota of reports annually.
8.2
In addition to the relative variable costs of each case,
there is a significant difference in fixed costs between the
services. The
ratio of managers to practitioners is very different in each service
as is the ratio of administrative staff to practitioners.
Guardians generally process their own reports and letters,
requiring little administrative support for case work.
In the Guardian service the administrative systems support
all the management tasks of recruitment, re-appointment, appraisal,
training, allocation of work, statistical monitoring etc.
In the Family Court Welfare Service, administrative support
is intensively used to support case workers as well as managers and
there are consequently greater numbers of
staff and higher
costs.
8.3
Most Guardians (four out of five) are self-employed and work
from home, further reducing the overhead, fixed costs of the
service. It is
essential that management roles and structure are costed before any
decision is made to adopt a particular model.
NAGALRO expects that
a comparative costing of a non -hierarchical accountable structure
for self-employed professionals would indicate Best Value.
NAGALRO would resist any investment by CAFCASS
in superfluous management and administrative systems that
would drain valuable resources away from direct services to children
and families.
9.
BEST VALUE
9.1
Peter Jeffries' evaluation of Best Value includes an appendix
that has not been made available to NAGALRO and an assertion at para.
6.7 iii) that the "four C's " check must be
completed. Modernising
Local Government dictates that outcomes must always be kept in
focus. NAGALRO
believes that the management and structure of the current Guardian
service provides a good cost-effective model, which has not been
considered as part of this discussion paper.
It could provide an alternative basis, together with improved
monitoring systems, for a management model other than those proposed
in the discussion document.
Cost Benefit Analysis is also an important aspect of Best
Value as there should be transparency of what is achieved, i.e.
effectiveness.
9.2
A further important consideration omitted from the discussion
document, is the extent to which the Guardian service is effective
in rural areas. The
home-office bases for Guardians cover extensive areas with the
potential for reducing travel costs and time by appointing Guardians
on a more local basis. An
improved network of communications, aided by technology, could build
on this cost-effective organisational base.
1
0.
EFFECTIVENESS
10.1
The rationale for the Guardian service is essentially to
improve the decision-making processes in public proceedings for
children and families and to offer children a right to independent
representation of their views and best interests.
10.2
One major reason for the effectiveness of the current
Guardian service is the tandem model of representation of children
in public proceedings which is
so highly regarded and ensures that .the child with party status has
equality of representation both in terms of care plan and
representation before the Court.
NAGALRO is committed to the child's right to be a party
in public law proceedings and the associated right to legal
representation as well as
the right to tandem representation for any child made a party in
private law proceedings. CAFCASS
practitioners must continue to instruct independent children panel
solicitors matched to the needs of the child.
11.
MANAGEMENT
11.1
In the discussion paper, Peter Jeffries uses the MCI
Standards to describe the tasks, but does not proceed to identify
which are the key management tasks performed most frequently by
Panel Managers. There
may be differences in the Family Court Welfare Service, but in the
Guardian service, the key functions are quality assurance,
recruitment, re-appointment, appraisal, training, work allocation,
complaints, payments, statistical monitoring, and networking.
A key responsibility is to ensure that the service is non-
discriminatory and relevant to the families it serves.
Equal opportunity recruitment and accessibility for all
groups in society is an essential goal of management.
In order to achieve this, the Panel Manager is responsible
for administrative staff.
In larger panels, such as London, there is also a need for an
Assistant Panel Manager.
There are many definitions of management functions, and a
variety of styles. There
are tensions inherent in managing professional staff, but
information available clearly demonstrates that facilitative and
co-operative management can be effective in motivating people and
enabling them to reach their potential in order to achieve high
standards of performance.
11.2
We are not aware of any body of evidence which supports
the notion that the manager-subordinate relationship produces good
results. Participative
management styles, good leadership and the scope for practitioners
to be responsible for their own actions are ingredients for
effective management.
11.3
NAGALRO believes that the proper role of area managers for
CAFCASS should include the traditional personnel functions of
recruitment and staff retention and development.
There has been a devolution of such human resource management
functions for many years and NAGALRO sees no reason to 'turn the
clock back' by
establishing human resource managers at HQ.
Similarly, the responsibility for managing the budgets for
administration and practice should rest at local area level with a
minimal number of financial specialists at HQ to provide the payroll
functions and act as consultants to local managers.
This would be more meaningful and achieve a more locally
responsive service.
12
THE LEARNING
ORGANISATION
12.1
There is a blueprint for a learning organisation described by
Pedlar ( 1991) which consist of 11 points, including 'enabling
structures', 'rewarding flexibility' and 'self-development for
all'.This must include learning for managers as well as
administrative staff and practitioners.
Equality of access to learning is important as well as a
variety of development opportunities.
12.2
NAGALRO does not include the provision of traineeships within
the definition of a learning organisation.
We expect practitioners to come to CAFCASS at a senior point
in their career. However,
continuous professional development is part of National Standards
and remains essential to NAGALRO's vision for the future of the new
service.
12.3
NAGALRO has always supported learning and indeed has
participated in the production of training courses, including the
induction programme. We
see no reason why the responsibility for organising training and
development should not be a management function.
The establishment of the new Agency is an opportunity to
enhance performance through a properly funded scheme for improved
professional development.
13.
QUALIFICATIONS
13.1
NAGALRO, alongside Panel Managers, takes the stand that a
social work qualification (or equivalent) should be a basic entry -
level requirement for new practitioners of the service.
The Utting report makes it clear that in order to safeguard
children, well - qualified staff are essential.
This will not be a requirement of current staff from any of
the three services as they have developed the expertise for their
current role and will continue in this role.
Qualification and experience will be needed before
practitioners can extend their roles beyond their current practice.
With the development of the Social Care Council all
practitioners will be required to demonstrate professional and
qualification requirements for registration.
NAGALRO asserts that the need for genericism is not proven
and that the path towards it should be carefully developed and kept
under review. The
task team on comparing and contrasting roles accepted the principle
of genericism which was not supported by the NAGALRO members who
held a minority view It
appears to be an accepted principle in the discussion paper
though it is not NAGALRO's position.
13.2
There is an opportunity to develop a postgraduate diploma or
MA/M.Phil programme relevant to the needs of CAFCASS in a University
or an Institute of Higher Education.
This has the potential to include professionals from a range
of disciplines.
13.3
NAGALRO take the view that Mentoring and Peer Consultation
should be enabling functions in the new organisation.
14.
MIXED ECONOMY
14.1
NAGALRO welcomes the recognition in the discussion paper that
there will be a mix of employed and self-employed practitioners.
In our view, all potential practitioners should be given the
opportunity to select the most appropriate method of work to match
changing needs in the evolution of a career.
Flexible working practices, including hours of work and
part-time work are referred to by Newell (1995) as 'family friendly
policies', allowing people to obtain jobs when they have domestic
and other responsibilities. They
are particularly attractive to women and are compatible with the
intention for CAFCASS to increase the diversity of its membership.
There is also a
sound business case for recruiting highly skilled and experienced
practitioners who are able to re-enter the workforce after a career
break, if the conditions are flexible.
14.2
NAGALRO is pleased with the efforts being made to establish
appropriate contracts for self-employed staff, but recognises that
self-employment requires sound service agreements.
The issue of line
management supervision is not applicable to self-employment but this
appears to have been ignored in the discussion paper.
14.3
NAGALRO supports the concept of service contracts and
effective contract management, which has been discussed at meetings
between ourselves, the Panel Managers and the Project Team at the
LCD.
14.4
NAGALRO recognises that when a practitioner fails to reach
the standards set or is in breach of a contract, it should be
possible to terminate or decline to renew their contract.
This is an excellent safeguard against poor practice and more
efficient than many disciplinary and grievance procedures.
With an improved service contract between CAFCASS and the
self-employed practitioner, clarity of the conditions triggering
termination will be achieved. We
await further clarification from the Project Team about this pivotal
issue in providing a professional, autonomous, but accountable
service.
15.
REGULATORY
PRACTICES
15.1
NAGALRO is of
the view that in the structurally flat, professional organisation
envisaged for CAFCASS, as well as a need for professional autonomy,
there should also be other regulatory systems.
These may include: internal audit including spot checks,
planned and random, monitoring
of outputs from Guardians, costed care plans,
reports to be available to managers upon request, and
monitoring of time alongside monitoring of case progression.
15.2
Where there is cause for concern about meeting standards,
individual programmes of review should be designed by the Area
Manager in consultation with practice advisers to promote the return
to an acceptable level of proficiency.
15.3
The role of the Chair and the Board will need to be clear in
relation to the setting and monitoring of standards of practice.
16.
LOCAL SERVICE
16.1
It is difficult to see this proposal in the context of the
retraction of local service offices within Local Authorities where
they have become unaffordable.
It is important to establish how
local offices could be used.
Customer satisfaction is not a concept which easily transfers
to the field of public law and child protection.
NAGALRO endorses locally sensitive complaint response and
high quality public information.
Undoubtedly there will be a need to offer centres for contact
with children in private law proceedings and some facilities for
interviewing children and families which NAGALRO has welcomed as one
of the major benefits of the new service.
However, there are many circumstances in which
NAGALRO believes that children should be visited and
interviewed where they feel most at ease- which will usually be
within their home or caring family.
16.2
Local offices will continue to need a reasonable level of
resources, including a work base for staff, managers and
administrative staff as well as a meeting place for employed and
self-employed practitioners.
17.
The Professional Support Structure for CAFCASS
THE PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT STRUCTURE SHOULD BE COMPOSED OF THE
FOLLOWING:
MENTORING:
CONSULTATION: PEER GROUP REVIEW: APPRAISAL.
17.1
MENTORING
NAGALRO sees mentoring as a personal support service,
available to new recruits for a period of about a year.
It is based on a supportive relationship, developed
individually and intended to help with the new practitioner's
professional development.
The allocation of a mentor would be organised by the manager,
but how often they meet should be left to the new practitioner on
advice from the mentor. There
would be an expectation that this arrangement is made and used by
all new members of the service.
The mentor would have accountability to the area manager for
the standard of advice offered, but would not report on the
practitioner unless there was exceptional reason such as
the likelihood of risk to children, or
grave concern about the practitioners ability to meet the
National Standards over a period of time.
17.2
CONSULTATION
As there would need to be a pool of mentors, there should
also be a panel of experienced practitioners identified who could
act as consultants to any practitioner requiring a review of their
practice. Practitioners
should be able to choose a consultant from a panel whose role would
be to promote good practice standards and enhance responsible
autonomy. Consultants
would not report to the manager unless there was a likelihood of
risk to children or there were similar ongoing concerns about the
ability of the practitioner to improve her ability to work to
National Standards. This
panel of consultants could also be used by managers to offer a
package of support and monitoring to any practitioner whose work had
caused concern during any other review process like appraisal, as
already occurs on many panels.
17.3
There
would be an agreed contract of work between the consultant and the
area manager for services. There
would also be an agreed individual contract for work between the
consultant and the practitioner, so that the parameters of the task
were clearly understood at the outset;
the indicators for improvement to a time scale agreed, and
the duty to report lack of progress an implicit part of the process.
17.4
PEER GROUP REVIEW
All practitioners would be expected to join a case discussion
group focusing on practice. Records
of attendance would be kept so that the manager would be aware of
the extent of an individual's attendance.
The composition of the group, the venue etc.
could be negotiated by the manager and its function would
assist the prevention of professional isolation and
the encouragement of
peer support outside the case discussion group.
17.5
APPRAISAL OF
PRACTITIONERS
All practitioners would be expected to participate in a
system of appraisal ( to take place every one or two years ).
Effective appraisal systems, which are usually a thorough 360°
appraisal have been developed by a number of Guardian panels and in
some instances, groups of panels.
The appraisers are independently contracted to operate
alongside management structures and provide an independent,
impartial review of the work in considerable detail.
It is an opportunity to discuss training needs and the
furtherance of professional development.
This process promotes openness and honesty and the
information gathered would be made available to the manager and to
those involved in making further contracts with each practitioner,
or further reviews.
17.6
PANELS OF MENTORS
CONSULTANTS AND APPRAISERS.
These people should be highly experienced practitioners who
are selected by the manager. Their
additional responsibilities should be paid at rates commensurate
with the senior level of their tasks.
The criteria for their selection should be agreed at the
total service level, ensuring standardisation and consistency.
Payment would be made directly to self-employed practitioners
and either as additional time or as time taken off in lieu for those
who are employed. The
acquiring of additional responsibilities is likely to be rewarding
and motivating for senior staff.
18.
CONCLUSIONS
18.1
The inevitable conclusions from this evaluation are that none
of the models for the structure of CAFCASS proposed by Peter
Jeffries are acceptable to NAGALRO.
None of them demonstrate the efficiency and flexibility
required by present day organic rather than mechanistic
organisations. Contracting
services is becoming increasingly common and NAGALRO would suggest
that the structure of the Guardian service was ahead of its time.
Modifications need to be made in the interests of economy and
in tightening up on measures to ensure child safety, but that
fundamentally the current
Guardian service works and works well.
18.2
Although there have been isolated incidents of unacceptable
practice and
there is a need to constantly ensure that all Guardians meet
the required standards, the majority of Guardian practitioners are
recognised as providing a high quality service.
There need to be certain changes, but NAGALRO asserts that
the changes made should be agreed to be necessary.
" If it ain't broke don't fix it", so why make
changes that could reduce the effectiveness of the Guardian service?
18.3
We suggest you give some consideration to more imaginative
structures based on Handy's
( 1991) Shamrock or Morgan's (1997) Spider Plant, as models of
organisation and
management structures.
19.
RECOMMENDATIONS
19.1
NAGALRO's argument is that the managerial/administrative
functions should be enabling and supportive.
This requires the separation of the management and administrative
functions from the professional facilitative task.
This is compatible with the appointment of the individual
CAFCASS practitioner by
the court and the consequent accountability of the practitioner for
decision making and recommendations to court.
19.2
NAGALRO's model of
a proposed structure for CAFCASS is appended below and reflects the
division between professional and managerial/administrative roles
which is central to our thinking.
19.3
NAGALRO recognises that this response is based on the
experience of practitioners in the Guardian service and we would
welcome the opportunity to examine with Family Court Welfare
Officers their views on establishing a professionally autonomous
organisation, as well as continuing dialogue with managers of both
services and with members of the Project Team and Project
Development Group.
The
Officers and Council of NAGALRO
Co-ordinated
by Kathy Butcher M.Sc.
In
Public Service Management
on
behalf of the NAGALRO Council
15th
August 2000
Appendix
2
References
Handy
C. ( 1991)
'The Age of Unreason'
Century
McGregor
D. (1960)
‘The Human Side of Enterprise' McGraw Hill
Morgan
G. ( 1997)
'Imaginisation' Sage
Neave
H.R. (1990)
'The Deming Dimension'
SPC Press
Newell
S. (1995)
'The Healthy Organisation'
Routledge
Pedlar
M., Burgoyne J.
Boydell
T.
'The Learning Company' McGraw Hill
Stewart
R. (1991)
'The Reality of Organisations'
Macmillan
Research
Clark
A. & Sinclair R. (1999) 'The
child in focus: the evolving role of the Guardian ad Litem' NCB
McCausland
J. ( 2000)
'Guarding children's interests - the contributionof the Gal
in court proceedings'
