Inspection of Cafcass: report on the responses to the consultation
Updated 17 March 2021
© Crown copyright 2021
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/future-inspection-of-cafcass-from-2021/outcome/inspection-of-cafcass-report-on-the-responses-to-the-consultation
Introduction
On 14 October 2020, Ofsted launched a consultation on the future framework for the inspection of Cafcass. The consultation ran for 4 weeks, closing on 11 November 2020. We were seeking the views of those working in the family justice system and those children and families involved in proceedings in the family court where Cafcass has a role.
Our consultation proposed:
- to introduce a whole-system approach that includes additional visits and activities alongside judgement inspections
- to introduce a new, more focused and proportionate judgement inspection of Cafcass as a national organisation
- to make a single judgement about the impact of leaders rather than judging local and national leadership separately
- to complete a focused visit at least once between judgement inspections
- that Cafcass should share a self-evaluation with us annually to help inform our inspection planning
Our proposals generated a good deal of interest. In total, we received more than 300 responses to the consultation, 295 through the online survey. The majority (79%) of online responses came from parents. Other respondents included local authorities, grandparents, representative groups, the judiciary, advocates and the voluntary sector. This report summarises those responses.
Context
Ofsted’s strategy sets out a guiding principle that underpinned the development of the new Cafcass inspection framework: to be a force for improvement through intelligent, responsible and focused inspection and regulation.
The changes we are making will play a significant role in enabling us to fulfil our strategic objectives. The new framework will:
- focus on the quality and impact of Cafcass’s practice in both public and private family law
- focus on whether the advice Cafcass gives to the family court is in children’s best interests
- align the inspection of Cafcass more closely with the inspection of local authority children’s services (ILACS)
The consultation method
The consultation was promoted through GOV.UK and through writing directly to an extensive list of stakeholders, which we compiled in conjunction with Cafcass.
Stakeholders included:
- Cafcass staff and managers
- the family judiciary and legal professions
- HM Courts & Tribunals Service
- The Association of Directors of Children’s Social Care
- The Family Justice Young People’s Board
- HM Government (the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice)
- organisations that represent children and parents involved in family court proceedings
- organisations that work in the fields of domestic abuse, parental alienation (the process through which a child becomes estranged from a parent as a result of psychological manipulation by another parent) and other relevant disciplines
Most respondents replied through the online survey. A minority returned a written response. The entire period of the consultation took place in the context of the COVID-19 restrictions. We met virtually with the Cafcass’s Family Justice Young People’s Board.
Summary of responses
Respondents to this consultation have broadly agreed with our proposals for the future inspection of Cafcass. Responses giving feedback about the length and frequency of inspection, the notice period before inspection and the single judgment about national leadership of Cafcass have each been constructively questioned.
We have confidence in our proposed approach, but our Research and Evaluation team will review its effectiveness as part of our routine framework evaluation during early implementation.
Findings in full
Cafcass did not submit a formal written response to the consultation but we fully consulted it on all of the proposals before the consultation launched. We held a consultation event with the Cafcass Chief Executive, her senior leadership team and officials from the Ministry of Justice, who confirmed that they supported the proposed approach to the future inspection of Cafcass. We also received individual responses from a small number of Cafcass employees.
The great majority of responses to the consultation are from parents, who described their experiences of family proceedings and the role of Cafcass in those proceedings. The nature of our justice system is that it is often experienced as adversarial, leading to some parties feeling that their case has been ‘won’ or ‘lost’. The experiences of respondents such as parents and grandparents are highly personal, and we thank all who shared theirs. We have taken all such responses very seriously.
Figure 1: respondents who completed the online survey
| Respondent type | Number of responses | % of responses |
|---|---|---|
| A parent | 233 | 79 |
| A young person | 2 | 1 |
| An employee of Cafcass | 5 | 2 |
| Judiciary | 2 | 1 |
| A local authority | 16 | 5 |
| Other | 36 | 12 |
| Total | 294 | 100 |
One respondent did not provide a response to this question.
All our proposals were approved of by a majority of respondents:
- 71% agreed with the proposed whole-system approach, while 19% disagreed
- 55% agreed with the proposal for a more focused and proportionate judgement inspection, while 33% disagreed
- 54% agreed with the proposal to make a single judgement about the impact of leaders, while 34% disagreed
- 77% agreed with the proposal to introduce focused visits between inspections, while 11% disagreed
- 79% agreed with the proposal to ask Cafcass to submit an annual self-evaluation, while 11% disagreed
Proposal 1: A whole-system approach
Summary of proposal
We proposed a whole-system approach that includes:
- asking Cafcass to share an annual self-evaluation of frontline practice in both public and private law
- an annual engagement meeting between the Cafcass chief executive and senior leadership team nominees and Ofsted’s national family justice policy and operational leads
- a national judgement inspection in a 3-year window
- focused visits between judgement inspections
What people told us
Overall, there was agreement with the proposed whole-system approach. However, one domestic abuse organisation feared it represented a ‘scaling back’ of inspection. Most respondents were in favour of an approach that promotes accountability, frequency and the quality of inspection.
Parents who responded welcomed the additional scrutiny and more regular inspection that the proposals set out to achieve. But some were sceptical about whether Cafcass’s weaker practice will be truly uncovered.
The small number of children and young people who responded to the consultation also supported the proposed approach.
The local authority responses were positive that this proposal was better aligned with other inspection frameworks, particularly ILACS. An organisation representing social workers strongly agreed with the whole-system approach and other organisations welcomed this too. A fathers’ representative group said it did not mind the frequency of Ofsted inspections as long as what we are looking at are the right things. An organisation representing Cafcass staff was uneasy with the statement in our consultation proposal that suggested those proposals were based on Cafcass’s continued high performance.
Figure 2: responses to proposal 1
| Responses | Number of responses | % of responses |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 159 | 54 |
| Agree | 50 | 17 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 21 | 7 |
| Disagree | 22 | 7 |
| Strongly disagree | 34 | 12 |
| Don’t know | 8 | 3 |
| Total | 294 | 100 |
Our response
We are confident that the whole-system approach will mean more frequent contact and more regular scrutiny, and not the scaling back of inspection that some respondents fear.
Our approach seeks to be both risk-based and proportionate. We have reflected on our experience of taking a similar approach in our inspection of local authority children’s services since the introduction of the ILACS framework. We have found that the greater frequency of activity, through focused visits, allows us to clearly set out any identified weaknesses more quickly. These can then be addressed at an early stage while publicly holding the organisation to account. We are confident that this ability to ‘catch before they fall’ will be successfully replicated with Cafcass. This provides added benefits to children and families and robust accountability. Further, if Cafcass’s performance were to decline, our inspection framework gives us the flexibility to increase the length and/or frequency of inspection.
Should Cafcass be judged inadequate, we will introduce monitoring visits 3 or 4 times each year.
Proposal 2: a new judgement inspection
Summary of proposal
We proposed a new shortened 3-yearly judgement inspection announced with a minimum of 5 working days’ notice. This brings the inspection of Cafcass into line with ILACS and enables inspectors to carry out substantial off-site analysis.
This is to be followed by up to 2 weeks of on-site fieldwork. Inspectors will work in small teams, gathering evidence in the geographical areas covered by Cafcass’s operational senior leaders (assistant directors).
What people told us
While most respondents supported the proposal to carry out inspections at short notice, others, particularly parents, argued that they should be unannounced. They feared that the notice would give Cafcass the opportunity to cover up any shortfalls in practice. Parents also felt that 2-week inspections on 3 3-year cycles were too infrequent. Grandparents expressed a fear that 3-yearly inspections risked missing some children’s experiences.
Children, particularly those on the Family Justice Young People’s Board, were particularly concerned about this proposal. They feared that reducing inspections to 2 weeks of fieldwork would decrease scrutiny.
Figure 3: responses to proposal 2
| Responses | Number of responses | % of responses |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 106 | 36 |
| Agree | 56 | 19 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 30 | 10 |
| Disagree | 37 | 13 |
| Strongly disagree | 58 | 20 |
| Don’t know | 4 | 1 |
| Total | 291 | 100 |
Our response
The framework will be clear that the length of the inspection will be proportionate to our current understanding of practice. On that basis, the reduction in fieldwork (from 3 weeks to 2) is, in part, reflective of Cafcass’s performance over the past few years. It replicates how we treat good and outstanding local authorities under the ILACS framework. If Cafcass’s performance significantly deteriorates, we have the flexibility to increase the length of fieldwork or frequency of inspection.
Our overall contact with Cafcass over a 3-year period will increase.
On the question of notice period, we absolutely understand respondents’ concerns and desire that Ofsted inspections should be unannounced. Intuitively it seems right. However, our experience shows us that asking for data and information in advance allows us to begin the inspection process remotely, for example evaluating a sample of reports to court. This frees up inspectors’ time during fieldwork so they can focus more on directly observing practice with, and hearing the views of, children and families.
The other common concern is that a notice period enables the inspected body to cover up any weaknesses. Cafcass, like most organisations, operates with electronic recording systems, which time-stamp amendments. Inspectors can therefore identify and challenge any recent changes to electronic records.
Proposal 3: a single national judgement about the impact of leaders
Summary of proposal
We proposed to make a single national judgement about the impact of leaders, rather than the previous approach where we judged local leadership and national leadership separately.
What people told us
A third of respondents expressed concerns about the proposal to make a single national judgement about the impact of leaders. They feared that this would fail to hold local leaders sufficiently to account. Cafcass staff felt it was important that local variations are captured, as did children and young people. Local authorities believe that having transparent accountability is important. Grandparents felt that this proposal risked a lack of thoroughness.
Some parents expressed approval of this proposal, as a single judgement encourages collective accountability. Others felt the approach risked being too simplistic for such a large and complex organisation.
Respondents were in broad agreement with the inspection criteria we published in our proposals but questioned whether they reflected actual practice within Cafcass. Feedback from respondents was clear about the importance of inspectors both directly observing Cafcass’s practice with families and hearing the direct testimony of children.
Figure 4: responses to proposal 3
| Responses | Number of responses | % of responses |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 99 | 34 |
| Agree | 58 | 20 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 28 | 10 |
| Disagree | 37 | 13 |
| Strongly disagree | 63 | 21 |
| Don’t know | 9 | 3 |
| Total | 294 | 100 |
Our response
This proposal attracted the most scepticism from respondents. Some said that without a graded judgement about each local area, making a single judgement would fail to hold local leaders to account.
We believe that holding leaders to account is not achieved only through publishing a grade. When inspectors report after either a focused visit or a full inspection, the narrative of that report will leave the reader in no doubt about each local leadership team’s strengths and areas for improvement.
This approach, like all aspects of the new inspection framework, will be formally evaluated by our Research and Evaluation team. In recognition of the views we have heard, we will ask our team to look specifically at this issue.
Proposal 4: Focused visits
Summary of proposal
We proposed to carry out 2-day focused visits between judgement inspections, with small teams of inspectors deployed across a sample of geographical areas. We proposed to report these visits through a published letter that sets out the main strengths of the service and areas for further improvement. We did not propose to make a judgement on the 4-point graded scale. The principal focus will be the quality and impact of practice (public, private or both) with children and families.
What people told us
Most respondents perceived focused visits as a positive proposal, providing increased scrutiny of Cafcass’s practice between judgement inspections. Some respondents expressed concern about how the topic area(s) will be determined and questioned whether one focused visit between judgement inspections was enough.
Some Cafcass staff questioned whether 2 days is enough. The small number of judges responding to the consultation felt that focused visits were an essential element in making the whole-system approach work. Local authorities, which already receive focused visits through a similar approach in the ILACS framework, felt they would provide additional assurance about Cafcass’s practice with children and families. Parents felt that visits provided additional opportunities for inspectors to listen to children’s views.
Figure 5: responses to proposal 4
| Responses | Number of responses | % of responses |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 148 | 51 |
| Agree | 75 | 26 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 27 | 9 |
| Disagree | 12 | 4 |
| Strongly disagree | 20 | 7 |
| Don’t know | 8 | 3 |
| Total | 290 | 100 |
Our response
Focused visits have proved extremely effective in our inspections of local authorities. The challenge with Cafcass, as some respondents pointed out, is the scale and size of Cafcass. Focused visits, as with most inspection activity, will have to focus on a sample of geographical areas. The increased regularity of inspection events will mean a substantial increase in how often we visit a specific geographical area, compared with under the previous inspection framework.
Ultimately, it is for Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector to determine the focused visit topic area, but we will discuss this with Cafcass and the Ministry of Justice. The inspection framework sets out that focused visits will:
- have a clear link to Cafcass’s statutory functions
- take account of previous inspection outcomes and Cafcass’s current improvement priorities
- take account of information and intelligence received since the last inspection or focused visit
The inspection framework will not limit us to one focused visit between full inspections. It allows us the flexibility to carry out additional visits where there are concerns about weaker practice.
Proposal 5: self-evaluation of practice
Summary of proposal
We proposed that Cafcass should share its self-evaluation with us annually to provide us with sufficient information to prepare for the inspection. We proposed the self-evaluation would need to set out:
- what Cafcass knows about the quality of its social work practice in both private and public law
- how Cafcass knows this
- Cafcass’s strengths and its priorities for improving social work practice
- who was involved in carrying out and agreeing the self-evaluation
What people told us
This proposal received the highest approval rating. Most respondents recognised its value. Local authority respondents said they appreciate the value of sharing their self-evaluation with Ofsted, as they do under the ILACS framework, as it can lead to helpful, self-reflective learning. The family judges also felt positive about this proposal, although one judge feared Ofsted may be overly influenced by it.
Parents and grandparents raised the issue of objectivity and whether a self-assessment can be relied on to be accurate and trusted.
An organisation representing Cafcass staff questioned whether a weak self-evaluation would lead to more frequent inspection, which they think it should.
The Family Justice Young People’s Board agreed with this proposal but was very clear that it would expect the self-evaluation to include feedback from children.
Figure 6: responses to proposal 5
| Responses | Number of responses | % of responses |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 179 | 61 |
| Agree | 53 | 18 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 18 | 6 |
| Disagree | 10 | 3 |
| Strongly disagree | 30 | 10 |
| Don’t know | 4 | 1 |
| Total | 294 | 100 |
Our response
Respondents flagged the potential for a self-evaluation to lack objectivity. We will use the annual engagement meeting to scrutinise the assertions made within the self-evaluation, but ultimately Cafcass’s accuracy of self-evaluation will be best tested through inspections and focused visits.
Any weaknesses identified in self-evaluation will be reflected in the published inspection reports and focused visit findings. Weaknesses may also impact on the timing of the next inspection event.
The framework will promote the need for accurate and objective self-evaluation by Cafcass to improve the quality and effectiveness of practice with children and families.
Additional information
Individual respondents, many parents and grandparents, those responding on behalf of organisations such as fathers’ groups, and those working in the domestic abuse field raised issues that – while important – sit outside the scope of this consultation.
What people told us
Respondents raised concerns about a range of Cafcass’s practice, including:
- the effectiveness of Cafcass’s complaints processes
- responses to parental alienation
- responses to domestic abuse, including the impact of contact, a victim-blaming culture in Cafcass and child arrangement orders that lead to dangerous consequences; many respondents referenced the Ministry of Justice’s report ‘Assessing risk of harm to children and parents in private law children cases’
- whether fathers are appropriately considered as safe parents
- whether Cafcass practitioners spend sufficient time talking to children, particularly in the light of increased caseloads for staff
- practice around equality, diversity, disability, culture and religion
- allocation practice to local law firms in one geographical area
In addition, respondents raised a desire to see families having access to Cafcass’s expertise before proceedings in a mediation role.
A further suggestion was for Ofsted to have a role in evaluating the impact of Cafcass’s advice to the family court, and the decision-making of the family court, 12 months after the order was made.
Our response
We have written to Cafcass’s Chief Executive, setting out respondents’ views about Cafcass’s practice without prejudice and without identifying any respondent.
In addition, we will keep our grade descriptors under review to ensure that they continue to reflect these important issues. Our inspections of Cafcass have always included, and will continue to take into account, an evaluation of the response to complaints.
It is not for us to comment on extending Cafcass’s statutory duties to include pre-proceedings mediation. But we are aware that reform across the family justice system, including safely diverting families away from family court proceedings, is a priority for the National Family Justice Board.
In terms of the long-term impact of family court orders, this goes beyond our remit. We have a duty to inspect Cafcass’s statutory functions, which limits inspectors to evaluating the quality and impact of Cafcass’s work up to the point that it advises the family court about what is in the child’s best interests. However, inspectors do look at the reasons why some cases result in repeat applications. Longer-term evaluation mainly falls within the role of academic research. We are aware of a number of academics working in this important area.
Next steps
We propose to publish the new inspection framework alongside this consultation response.
We have, ahead of publication and with Cafcass’s consent, already received its first self-evaluation and explored its efficacy at our first annual engagement meeting.
We are now considering what the next inspection activity will be and when it will happen, taking into account our assessment of the self-evaluation.
Equality, diversity and inclusion
As part of the consultation, we published a draft equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) statement. Through the consultation process, we received limited feedback on this and the detail within the proposals. Just over 10% of responses explicitly commented on equalities issues.
Of the 306 respondents to the consultation, 296 were external to Ofsted and 6 were from Ofsted’s workforce. We received 74 comments specific to EDI. These comments came from 36 respondents. Fifty-one people directed their comments to Cafcass and 17 directed them to Ofsted.
Those directed to Ofsted sought assurance that inspections would focus on:
- Black and minority ethnic children, including exploring the quality and impact of anti-racist practice
- gender imbalance, with particular reference to Cafcass’s recruitment practice
- equality, diversity and discrimination
In addition, 5 respondents explicitly stated that Ofsted’s EDI statement demonstrated that we met our public sector equality duty, in their opinion.
Comments directed to Cafcass were dominated by concerns about gender bias (43%) and wider equality, diversity and discrimination (41%) in practice. A smaller number of respondents cited concerns about most other protected characteristics.
We have carefully considered this feedback and reviewed every response and free-text comment for EDI concerns. We have published a revised EDI statement alongside this consultation outcome. We are committed to keeping our inspection framework, and particularly the grade descriptors, under review to satisfy ourselves that protected characteristics as defined in the Equality Act 2010 are fully and appropriately addressed. Inspectors will use the grade descriptors to inform their lines of enquiry during inspections/visits, the judgements we make and how we report on our findings.