Agata Miskowiec and Yvonne Reinhardt argue that data-driven performance management must be paired with better case progression tracking, a better understanding of outcomes for children, and clear accountability within local family justice systems.
Delays in care proceedings and their impact on children and families remain a complex challenge for many local authorities (LAs) and Designated Family Judge (DFJ) areas in England. According to the latest CAFCASS data, the national average for care and supervision (s31) applications was 43 calendar weeks in Q4 2023-24[1] - 17 weeks longer than the 26-week statutory time limit introduced by the Children and Families Act 2014. At roughly 10 months, this is a significant proportion of a child’s life.
Tackling such entrenched delays requires local leaders to have clarity on the drivers of delays in their areas and the impact these are having not only on timescales but also on outcomes for children and their families. Various reviews and research reports have highlighted the need for more thorough data collection and case analysis to provide a solid foundation for whole-system practice improvement. However, while rigorous data collection is crucial, relying on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) as the sole basis for improvement can be problematic. Through our work with DFJ areas across the country, we have identified three key areas that need focused attention for data-driven improvement initiatives to succeed:
1. Data quality
A key issue with relying solely on KPIs is the significant variation in data quality across different LAs and even between teams in the same authority. In 2023, MV’s research into the financial impact of delays in care proceedings highlighted the lack of a reliable single source of data from pre-proceedings through to court orders in most DFJ areas. Gaps in operational data, ineffective data capture tools and poor integration of PLO trackers with case management systems exacerbate this problem. Similarly, information silos, both within and across organisations, further limit data sharing. Inaccurate data can lead to flawed analyses, which may misinform decision-makers and undermine improvement efforts.
2. Unintended consequences
Focusing too narrowly on specific performance metrics can lead teams to prioritise hitting targets over improving local practice to produce better outcomes. Whilst reducing delays to meet the 26-week goal is important, there is a risk that a sole focus on shortening proceedings may have unintended negative consequences. There is no publicly available information on regional differences in types of orders or outcomes, yet, anecdotally, stakeholders have raised concerns that rushed disposals might not always be in the best interest of children and could lead to higher rates of repeat care proceedings. Systematic collection of outcome data would help identify patterns and assess if there is a link between duration and outcomes.
3. Inefficient cross-system governance and decision-making
Effective KPI management requires clear accountability and decision-making structures, something that many local family justice systems struggle with due to their complexity.
Even the best-designed monitoring processes will not improve outcomes if there is no clarity as to how to escalate issues, who can make decisions on behalf of the system, what actions need to be taken by whom and by when as well as how action owners will be held to account. As the key forum that can bring all partners together, Local Family Justice Boards need to work towards an agreed set of outcomes and objectives so they can incentivise behaviours across the system to make sustainable change happen.
Establishing a single, clear line of accountability and data governance within that setting involves defining cross-system roles and responsibilities for data collection, analysis, and reporting, ensuring that everyone involved understands their part in the process. Clear governance structures can help maintain data integrity, promote transparency, and foster a culture of continuous improvement across all partners within each DFJ area.
Whilst it is crucial to acknowledge the limitations of existing data and processes, in times of multiple pressures, it is equally important to embrace pragmatic solutions that make the best use of the data we have, despite its imperfections. The first step towards better performance management in the family justice system is a cross-system commitment to act on available data, whilst gradually building up analytical capabilities in parallel. By doing this, we can continue to build the evidence base for local initiatives to address the persistent delays in care proceedings.
While ‘what gets measured gets managed’ is not an absolute truth, it underscores the need for more data-driven approaches. Improvement won’t come solely from measurement, but without data, the path forward is unclear. To drive meaningful change, we must act on insights now, even as we work to improve data quality and system-wide analysis.
[1] CAFCASS Quarterly data Q4: 2023-24: https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/about-us/our-data/quarterly-data
If you would like to discuss the Trailblazers programme further, please get in touch with morgan.nasir-finlayson@mutualventures.co.uk
Comments