Many respondents described the Intervention Planning Meetings (IPMs) and review IPMs as very helpful, bringing everyone and everything together in a focused way right from the start, and setting and reviewing clear timescales and expectations. It was also noted that the IPM is an opportunity for everyone to air their anxieties and discuss the best course of action. Social workers talked positively about being involved in the process and being asked for their opinions on the plan.
It feels safer when cases are in FDAC, safer for children and for professionals. The team pull everything together and hold the risk and tension very well. [social worker]
The FDAC team take the view that cases are dealt with through a ‘team around the child’ approach, with the team focusing on parents and liaison with adult services, while social workers and guardians focus more on the child. Focus groups and interviews with other professionals explored the issue of working together within this framework and of whether there was clarity about the roles played by different professionals. Working together with social workers
The majority of social workers also said that when cases were in FDAC they saw themselves as part of a team. They felt able to challenge the views of different
professionals if necessary and, as the pilot had progressed, they had become clearer that the social work role was to focus on the child while the FDAC team focused on the substance misuse and the parents. Some felt more comfortable when a case was in FDAC because of this certainty – they could focus on the child knowing that FDAC were concentrating on the parent. Several said there was clear recognition that everyone involved needed to contribute and share information.
Every agency carries out their individual piece of work with the family. However, the network has regular meetings to share information and to review the plan of action. The parents attend these meetings and the deadlines are clear and strict. [social worker]
When a case is in FDAC I don’t feel I have to be on top of co-ordinating
everything. I feel confident that FDAC are concentrating on the adult and we can focus on the child. I feel much more comfortable when cases are in FDAC. [social work manager]
Parents are carried, supported and nurtured in quite an intensive way so our role is much more focused on the child. [social worker]
A small number of social workers felt it odd to hand over the planning of the case in relation to the parents to the FDAC team, but they recognised that this was part of the ‘teething problems’ of a pilot programme. Some also suggested that there was a need for greater clarity around the respective roles of the social worker and the FDAC key
worker when children remained living at home with their parents throughout the proceedings.
A number of examples were given of specific disagreements between social workers and the FDAC key worker. These were about responses to lapses, different interpretations of lapse and relapse,81 and the frequency of testing. Concerns raised by some social workers about FDAC being too parent focused have been explored earlier.
The FDAC team thought their relationships with social workers were variable, and largely dependent on personality. They have been surprised to find very different approaches within the same team. They noted that their own team’s reflective practice provides support to individuals when there are tensions with social workers, but acknowledged that there is a continuing tendency for work to be less collaborative in those cases where relationships are not good. Such cases often became more complicated as a result. Some guardians and lawyers felt that when a case was in FDAC the local authority would ‘take its eye off the ball’ and be insufficiently proactive in relation to planning. Linked to this, lawyers also expressed concern at local authority delays in organising and carrying out viability assessments of extended family members, although others took the view that on the whole these were organised reasonably quickly once a case had started to go wrong.
Working together with guardians
FDAC has a dedicated pool of guardians who have continued to be appointed in each case at the start of proceedings. Judges, social workers and lawyers are all appreciative of this system. They also value highly the quality and experience of the guardians allocated to FDAC.
The interim report noted that guardians, and others, had initially felt a lack of clarity about the role of the guardian in FDAC and that some guardians and lawyers had felt that guardians were being marginalised. By the end of the first year of the pilot this was already changing, with a majority of guardians much clearer about their role.
I think my role is to ask questions from a different angle.
We’ve discovered we’re assertive and it’s working well. At the beginning there was definitely a feeling that we were less in control and the ‘experts’ were determining what was going on. Now it’s much more collaborative.
By the end of the evaluation everyone involved in the court process were clear that the guardian’s role in FDAC cases is to ensure that the focus is on the child throughout, that child protection issues are identified and responded to, and that concerns are raised (through negotiation with the local authority and, if necessary, through contest) if guardians are unhappy with the recommendations in the care plan. A number of guardians also saw their role as ensuring there was a focus on parallel planning for permanency away from parents if the prognosis in the case was poor.
81
Lapse is used by the FDAC team to refer to a temporary lapse from control over substance misuse, as opposed to a relapse, which is used to mean a complete return to misuse.
Their role is good. They are totally focused on the child. That brings us back to that focus as well. [FDAC team]
There is a potential lack of focus on children [in FDAC] and it is up to guardians and lawyers for children to help ensure there is a focus on children all the way through. In FDAC it is good that they are there from the beginning. If that didn’t happen it would be a grave concern. [lawyer]
The presence of guardians at reviews reduced over the period of the evaluation due to their increased workload following the rise in care proceedings. But their attendance at reviews was something singled out as being of great value, particularly by social
workers. Guardians are concerned that they will ‘fall out of the loop’ now they have less time to attend these non-lawyer review hearings.
Guardians were very positive about the nature and level of communication with the FDAC team.
The early Intervention Planning Meeting is very helpful ... you have an early plan and everyone can air their anxieties there ... as a guardian you are fully involved from the beginning. It is so nice to discuss things with [members of the FDAC team] because they have very good knowledge and expertise.
In the end-of-case forms guardians were asked to comment on their role in FDAC cases. In three of the 38 cases guardians had no comment because the case had stayed in FDAC for too little time. In a third of the others, the view was that their role and input did not differ significantly from non-FDAC cases. Differences were described in the other two-thirds. Some were about needing less time for a case, which is dealt with in more detail below.
Other differences were less tangible. Several said they felt less stressed than in ordinary care proceedings either because the supportive professional network that FDAC
facilitated was of benefit to themselves as well as other professionals and family
members, or because there was less anxiety about how to engage the right services in a timely way. Another difference was that their role of ensuring a clear focus on the needs of the child was helped by knowing that someone - FDAC - was giving due consideration to the particular needs of the parents.
Working together with lawyers
The interim report noted that interviews and court observations indicated that lawyers had had the most difficulty adjusting to the FDAC process and, as noted earlier, had been particularly concerned about non-lawyer review hearings and issues around expert evidence. Although some lawyers continue to have some concerns about these issues, the majority who took part in focus groups were extremely positive about FDAC.
There is a clear plan being run by competent professionals.
In normal care proceedings lawyers and guardians have to drive the case because of the failings of the local authority. We shouldn’t have to do that, and with FDAC we don’t. That is how cases should be.
The judges and the FDAC team feel that lawyers are working well with the FDAC approach and process and find legal representatives to be good, clear and thorough. Both judges and lawyers noted that it was not unusual for legal representatives who were unfamiliar with FDAC to struggle at first with the more informal and partnership approach and that this occasionally created problems. The team also felt that lawyers for parents have sometimes taken an unnecessarily adversarial line, although this reduces noticeably as lawyers become familiar with the process.
There is definitely a feeling from some lawyers, usually those acting for parents who, when they first experience FDAC, show almost open hostility. They don’t get it initially. Once they get past the first assessment then they start to change. It is invariably solicitors who are unaware of the process. In reality it is the best possible chance for their clients.
It was suggested that an improved flow of information about FDAC to the legal profession would help reduce this antagonism.
Working together with adult services
Since supporting parents to stay engaged with treatment services is a key desired outcome of the pilot it is important to have good partnership working in place between the FDAC team and adult treatment services. Also important is good communication between the team and the wide range of services providing treatment and support to parents, so that the team can keep an accurate track of parental engagement. A final aspect to the relationship with adult services was the hope that the presence of FDAC would contribute to improved communication between adult treatment services and children’s services.
A small number of representatives from a range of adult services attended focus groups or responded to questionnaires.82 Their responses divided equally: some thought that communication and joint work with the FDAC team was good overall and they felt informed and involved appropriately in decisions about treatment, whilst others felt that communication was poor, with lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities, both
between FDAC and adult treatment services and between FDAC and children’s services. There’s lots of communication and no problems over that. [housing]
They are good at getting minutes to us quickly and inviting us to reviews and involving us in decisions about where to go for treatment. [voluntary sector alcohol service]
Communication starts off well and then slides ... you have to chase them to find out information. [adult substance misuse service]
Communication is not good really. There is the expectation that treatment services can just drop everything and attend a meeting or write a report at a moment’s notice. I do not have a sense that we work in partnership, despite the rhetoric. [adult substance misuse service]
82
They noted some overlap in work being done by substance misuse treatment services and FDAC and said that sometimes there was tension about, for example, what to prescribe and how much to prescribe. The tension arises because adult services can feel that parents are being put under pressure to withdraw from treatment too quickly. Nonetheless, it was also stated that where there was a possible duplication of roles FDAC were good at getting people together to work out the best approach. FDAC is seen as having a flexible approach to treatment and a willingness to try and do things in different ways. Some respondents from services providing therapeutic interventions felt that there was sometimes insufficient delineation between their role and that of FDAC. Representatives from adult treatment services acknowledged that there was no routine feedback to FDAC about whether parents were attending appointments as planned, although they would always contact FDAC if they were concerned. More routine
feedback, such as a treatment service’s record of appointments kept, was identified as a helpful way of guarding against drift.
Adult services respondents did not feel that the existence of FDAC had improved relationships with children’s services, which they described as ‘difficult’, although it was pointed out that relations with other adult services, such as mental health, are also difficult. Children’s services respondents also described difficulties in their relationship with adult substance misuse services. It was acknowledged that FDAC did try to improve communication between adult and children’s services in individual cases and it was also acknowledged that the flow of information between adult and children’s services is better when a case is in FDAC.
The team felt that there was more work to be done on improving relationships with adult services and that there was a particular need to deal with their different priorities in relation to timescales. Work was also needed around the tensions stemming from the abstinence-based approach used in most FDAC cases and the harm-minimisation approach more familiar to adult services.
Does FDAC create more or less work for others?
Some social workers took the view that although attending reviews was time consuming, there was a corresponding saving in time because of the reduced need to write updating statements for the court. Another view was that, although you might go to court less frequently in ordinary proceedings, you were at court for a longer period and the time was used less productively. Some thought FDAC cases involved less work because there was less drift and less duplication to deal with. Others thought that having to attend reviews and, as a result, prioritise FDAC cases created extra work.
Many social workers and some managers felt that FDAC cases involved them in less work with parents. This was because it was much harder to engage parents in ordinary proceedings and because workers had to spend time chasing information from other agencies.
Managers generally had different views, with some recognising the time-saving aspects of FDAC and others more concerned at the time spent attending reviews. More
managers than social workers expressed concern about the impact of frequent court reviews on social work time management.
A number of lawyers and guardians took the view that in ordinary proceedings they often have to ‘drive the case’ because of the failings of the local authority, but that this is not a problem in FDAC cases.
A number of lawyers said there was less work for them while cases remained in FDAC. There was consensus, too, that once a case began to go wrong and left FDAC there was a similar amount of work as in ordinary proceedings.
An FDAC case that is being properly proceeded with is less work than an
average case for children and parents’ lawyers and for guardians. The real work for us in FDAC comes when things start to go pear shaped. [lawyer]
It is definitely less work for parents’ solicitors. You don’t have to scrabble around to find experts and all that. [lawyer]
Guardians also noted that the extra meetings and court hearings in FDAC cases brought advantages in that ‘there is a whole team of people involved’ and this meant there were fewer administrative tasks needing to be done by guardians.
… fewer phone calls to other agencies, less working just to keep in touch, and fewer lengthy reports, because FDAC has often said it all. [guardian]
Guardians pointed to other advantages, too, many about the time saved by FDAC. The team’s practice of taking a full social history early on means that guardians and others do not have to ask parents to repeat their background history. The regular attendance of other professionals and parents at reviews, intervention planning meetings and review IPMs provided good opportunities for guardians to exchange information and keep up to date. The work of the FDAC team in liaising with adult services saved time when
compared with ordinary proceedings. All this contributed to FDAC cases taking up less time for guardians. They felt they did not have to keep such a close eye on cases as in ordinary proceedings, particularly there were several changes of social worker during the course of a case. Like the lawyers, guardians noted that the work load increased if parents exited FDAC because they had failed to engage.
As already noted, the number of court reviews on FDAC days increases the administrative burden on court staff.
Training
The feasibility study for FDAC had noted that a key lesson from research into problem- solving courts in the USA and other places was the importance of training for all the different professionals involved. This included training for members of a new multi- disciplinary team, training for the team alongside the judges and court staff, and training for all the professionals likely to be working with adults and children involved in the proceedings.
The interim evaluation report noted that the training plans for FDAC had not taken place as envisaged in the feasibility study. The very short time period available to recruit the team before the start of the pilot put paid to plans for the team, the specialist judges,
court staff and guardians to have preparatory multi-disciplinary sessions about FDAC’s aims, approach and procedure.
In January 2008, shortly before the court opened, an away day was held for the team, the judges, court staff, some guardians and some key personnel from the three local authorities, and this helped to consolidate what had already been done to prepare for the pilot. Nine months later the team and the judges had a half-day session together on Motivational Interviewing, which followed earlier training on MI for the team alone. FDAC team members have been able to access a range of other training during the first two years of the pilot and have also benefited from sharing skills within the team. The team has welcomed all these training opportunities. They are clear, however, that a
prerequisite of rolling out the model more widely is time for a multi-disciplinary specialist team to train together before taking on cases. At the very minimum, this will enable the