This submission is from Research in Practice. We are the leading agency focused on building capacity for evidence-informed practice in children’s services in England and Wales. We are a membership-based network of over 110 agencies (including 83 local authorities in England and all 22 in Wales).
Our work involves bringing together practitioner expertise with formal research evidence – creating new knowledge and new skills to improve outcomes for children, young people and their families. We were established in 1996 and are a department within the Social Justice programme of the Dartington Hall Trust (a registered charity) in collaboration with the University of Sheffield and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services. We provide research summaries and publications, a multi-disciplinary learning programme, developmental knowledge exchange projects (‘Change Projects’), tailored support for Partner agencies, knowledge and good practice exchange within our network, and a website. We also support strategic national initiatives including the Centre for Excellence and Outcomes in Children and Young People’s Services (C4EO) in which we are a core partner.
Our submission draws on our experience of working closely with children’s services to support improvements in practice and in particular on a Change Project which looked at how social work expertise can be supported in the family court and how social workers’ use of research in family law proceedings can be improved. The project involved representatives from 11 agencies (including local authorities and Cafcass) who came together to consider the research base, shared existing knowledge and practice, carried out local development projects, and produced a set of resources which were then tested by another group of agencies. The work also involved a one-day knowledge exchange workshop with a group of national experts in family law and a telephone survey. The project resources are published as a Research in Practice Handbook: Evidence Matters: social work expertise in the family court (Eccles and Erlen, 2008) - a copy has been sent to the Review with this submission.
Our submission focuses on public law cases in the family justice system and addresses the Review’s concern with workforce development, in particular:
Q20 What qualifications and experience should be required for the different roles of those who work in the family justice system? What should be included in initial training and continuous professional development?
Our work emphasises the need to strengthen the social work contribution to public family law cases and the value that is placed on social work expertise by the courts. Our subscribing agencies tell us there is a lack of clarity about the parameters of social workers’ expertise and great diversity between courts and judges in the weight placed on it, with some courts reluctant to accept the evidence of social workers unless it is corroborated by an appointed expert. The judiciary has been critical of the quality of social work assessments and evidence and it is true that more support is needed to ensure social workers reach consistent levels of competence. Important recent initiatives to improve the quality of professional training both before and in employment are already beginning to make a difference, and the work of the Social Work Reform Board will be important in building on this. The fact that social workers have a dual role in court proceedings as witnesses of fact and providers of informed specialist opinion may also be relevant here.
Our partner agencies report frequent experience of additional specialist assessments being required by the court which sometimes simply duplicate or add little to social work evidence and are seen as making a substantial contribution to delay in court proceedings: Julia Brophy’s research (Brophy, 2006) for the Department of Constitutional Affairs highlights the very heavy use made of expert assessments. This obviously has cost implications and we should also be mindful of the demands placed on children and young people when assessments and information collection is repeated. We think there is a need to limit the use of additional assessments and to develop clear guidelines to support consistency in their use. A better model would be for local authorities to be properly resourced to commission specialist assessments when they are needed as part of their assessment and care planning processes. But there is also a need for courts to accept that uncertainty cannot be removed from the process of protecting children from harm, that professional judgement is an essential and positive part of the process, and that a well-evidenced assessment with well-argued decisions and recommendations should be sufficient. There also needs to be recognition that a good social work assessment is comprehensive and holistic, based on frequent contact with family members together and separately, and uses approaches and frameworks that are themselves evidence-based.
There is also however a need to continue to strengthen analysis and critical thinking skills within the social work profession both in professional training before employment and in continuous professional development, and to support the intelligent application of research to assessment and case planning. This requires organisational cultures that support evidence-informed practice, policies and procedures that are informed by research, social workers’ access to research, the development of skills in appraising and applying it to individual cases, opportunities for peer-based learning and discussion, and supervision systems that support critical thinking and the use of research. In our Change Project we heard about Devon Council’s use of prompts and aide-memoires in core assessments to encourage the use of research, and about West Berkshire’s use of the Minnesota model of case discussion in assessments.
There is also a need for specific training for social workers in court work and in the use of research in court: at the time of our Change Project, few local authorities provided this and although we hear of more examples now, provision is patchy. Indeed, some local authorities in the Change Project reported that the use of research was somewhat discouraged because of concerns that social workers could not defend their knowledge well under cross-examination. Again, organisational support, guidance and high quality supervision and professional development are needed here (Dickens, 2004). Our Handbook provides guidance for social workers in how to prepare for court and make more effective use of research when they give evidence in court. It also includes nine short films demonstrating successful strategies and pitfalls in using research which have been used by many of our partner agencies for internal training.
Finally, our work suggests there is also a need for access to and training in the use of research for other professionals involved in family law cases, including the judiciary, as Larkin et al (2005) and others have identified. Social workers in our Change Project reported mixed experiences of courts in terms of their knowledge of research and a general uncertainty about what level of familiarity with key research findings and bodies of evidence they could assume. The work of the Family Justice Council in continuing professional development is important, but we think there is a need for more training for the judiciary and for interdisciplinary learning opportunities – for professions both to learn together and to learn about each other. In our Change Project, for example, we heard from Gloucestershire Council about their interdisciplinary training bringing together judges, Cafcass officers, experts, social workers and lawyers. As Mr Justice Gillen has written:
‘Social workers need to be much more professional ... to know what the court requires and expects by way of evidence. They need to acquire an understanding of court procedures. Equally, the judiciary and legal profession needs to have an informed understanding of the role of the social worker and the extent of his/her authority.’ (Gillen, 2002).
Contact
We are happy to provide further information to support this submission. Please contact: Jane Lewis, Director 01803 867692
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
References
Brophy J (2006) Care Proceedings under the Children Act 1989: a research review DCA Research Series 5/06 London: Department of Constitutional Affairs
Dickens J (2004) ‘Risk and Responsibilities: the role of the local authority lawyer in child care cases’ Child and Family Law Quarterly 16 (1)
Eccles C and Erlen N (2008) Evidence Matters: social work expertise in the family court
Dartington: Research in Practice
Gillen J (2002) ‘Achieving best practice to secure the best interests of the children’ in Child Care in Practice 8 (4)
Larkin E, McSherry D and Iwaniec D (2005) ‘Room for improvement? Views of key professionals involved in care order proceedings’ Child and Family Law Quarterly 17 (2)
