Alrouh, Bachar

Broadhurst, Karen Elizabeth

Harwin, Judith

Palmer, Melanie

Swift, Stephen

Lancaster E-Prints

Spotlight on supervision orders: what do we know and what do we need to know?1  Spotlight on supervision orders: what dowe know and what do we need to know?Professor Judith Harwin*, Dr Bachar Alrouh**, Dr Melanie Palmer*, Professor KarenBroadhurst** and Dr Stephen Swift**Brunel University London**Lancaster UniversitySupervision orders have been in the news recently after a freedom of information request to theChild and Family Court Advisory Service (Cafcass) found their use, when attached to a specialguardianship order, had more than doubled in the last five years. A spotlight on supervisionorders is very unusual. As this article will reveal, these orders are largely ‘under the radar' in somany crucial ways. We tease out the range of gaps in our knowledge and understanding of thecontribution of supervision orders. We conclude by identifying what we need to know and howa major new national study we are conducting, funded by the Nuffield Foundation and located infive participating local authorities is helping address these significant gaps. The goal is to informfamily justice policy, practice and service development and to generate robust population wideevidence on whether there is a need to strengthen the regulatory framework.Are supervision orders worth the paper they are written on?Views on the value of supervision orders are highly contested. As early as 1994, they weredescribed in case law as a ‘relatively feeble tool'. Just 5 years later, a major evaluation of theChildren Act 1989 concluded that consideration needed to be given to how supervision orderscould be made ‘more robust and useful' (Hunt et al, ‘The last resort: child protection, the courtsand the 1989 Children Act' (TSO, 1999)). Yet in 2011 the Family Justice Review (MOJ, 2011)‘Family Justice Review: final report' www.gov.uk/government/publications/family-justice-review-final-report) concluded that it did not have the evidence to introduce conditions to supervisionorders.These criticisms need to be weighed against the advantages that case law has highlighted inrespect of supervision orders. The benefits that are cited include proportionality, the duty they layupon local authorities to provide resources to ‘advise, assist and befriend' the supervised child,and their capacity to promote parental self-esteem as only the parent, not the local authority, holdsparental responsibility. Practitioners also reveal the same mixed views on the contribution ofsupervision orders. In the small-scale follow-up evaluation of the first Family Drug and AlcoholCourt (FDAC) in care proceedings, some professionals reiterated earlier messages that supervisionorders ‘lacked teeth' and were ‘ineffective' (Harwin et al [2014] ‘Changing lifestyles, keepingchildren safe: an evaluation of the first Family Drug and Alcohol Court in care proceedings'www.nuffieldfoundation.org/evaluation-pilot-family-drug-and-alcohol-court). Uncertainties aboutthe powers they confer were common, particularly with regard to powers to require parents to takeup treatment and how to handle non-compliance.What do we know about the patternand scale of supervision order usage?Without robust national information on scale and pattern, it is difficult to gauge the impact ofsupervision orders on courts and children's services and to plan services. Yet until very recentlythere has been a serious lack of robust evidence on supervision orders at the most basic level.Although the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) publishes statistical information on supervision orders,Spotlight on supervision orders: what do we know and what do we need to know?2neither the Department for Education (DfE) nor Cafcass currently publish any statistics on theseorders, although Cafcass collects the data.Our study is helping to address some of these data deficits building on the methodology we haveused in the team's related programme of work (Broadhurst et al ‘Connecting events in time toidentify a hidden population: birth mothers and their children in recurrent care proceedings inEngland' (2015) 45 British Journal of Social Work 2241; Harwin et al [2015] ‘A national study ofthe usage of supervision orders and special guardianship over time (2007–2016): briefing paperno 1' www.nuffieldfoundation.org/supervision-orders) and enabling us to chart national trendson scale and pattern. As reported in the last issue of Family Law (Harwin et al, ‘Considering thecase for parity in policy and practice between adoption and special guardianship: findings froma population wide study' [2016] Fam Law 204), the results are intriguing. The marked rise insupervision orders attached to SGOs special guardianship orders in the last 5 years was not foundwhen supervision orders were made as a standalone option. They comprised between 13%–14% oflegal orders made when compared with care, placement, special guardianship, child arrangements/residence and order of no order. Notably, this percentage remained almost unchanged over the 5-year period.These divergent trajectories for supervision orders with or without other orders raise asmany questions as they answer but at present we lack solid evidence on possible reasons andconsequences. As a result courts and children's services lack the information they need tohelp them decide whether or not to make a supervision order, for which children, under whatcircumstances and with what likely effects.Does a supervision order promote asustainable pathway to permanency?The central goal of a supervision order is to ‘advise, assist and befriend' the child and family.Whether the plan is reunification to birth parent[s] or to support another legal order, the aim isto increase the sustainability of the placement. Despite the body of research on reunification,the main studies (Wade et al, ‘Caring for abused and neglected children: making the rightdecisions for reunification or long-term care' (Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2011); Thoburn et al[2012] ‘Returning children home from public care' SCIE research briefing 42, www.scie.org.uk/publications/briefings/briefing42; Farmer et al, ‘Achieving successful returns from care:what makes reunification work?' (BAAF, 2011)) have focused on looked after children wheresupervision orders have been rather marginal to discussion (Harwin et al, ‘Strengtheningprospects for safe and lasting family reunification: can a Family Drug and Alcohol Court make acontribution?' [2013] Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 459). The small-scale follow-upof supervision orders in the evaluation of the first FDAC in care proceedings (Harwin et al [2014]‘Changing lifestyles, keeping children safe: an evaluation of the first Family Drug and AlcoholCourt in care proceedings' www.nuffieldfoundation.org/evaluation-pilot-family-drug-and-alcohol-court) found considerable variability in levels of support with poor outcomes particularly for olderchildren. However, it was not possible to contextualise the findings of the study in the absenceof national data on the use of directions, rates of supervision order breakdowns, returns to court,and outcomes for children and their parents. The lack of information is problematic because thereis a risk that the troublesome findings on reunification for looked after children will simply beextrapolated to children placed on supervision orders.It is imperative that evaluative research provides answers so that the courts and local authoritiesknow if the making of a supervision order promotes a sustainable pathway to permanency. Butat present, information specific to outcomes for children subject to supervision orders is notavailable because the DfE national database on family reunification is based on looked afterchildren only, whereas, the majority of children placed on supervision orders are deemed childrenin need. Outcomes could be tracked via the DfE Children in Need (CiN) national database, butagain information specific to supervision order children is not published routinely. As a result, itis not possible to differentiate this particular group from CiN children generally, despite the factSpotlight on supervision orders: what do we know and what do we need to know?3that they are the only group to have been dealt with through the courts because of actual or likelysignificant harm.The collection of data on child wellbeing is also far more limited. There is no requirement tomonitor physical growth, emotional and behavioural development or, in older children substancemisuse and convictions, unlike children who are looked after continuously for more than 12months. The review mechanisms are also weaker than those for looked after children, as childrensubject to supervision orders fall outside the remit of the independent reviewing officer (IRO),reducing the opportunity to challenge the local authority (Jelicic et al [2014] ‘The role ofIndependent Reviewing Officers (IROs) in England: final report' www.ncb.org.uk/media/1124381/ncb_the_role_of_independent_reviewing_officers_in_england_-_final2.pdf). Now that theChildren and Families Act 2014 only requires courts to consider the placement arrangementsin the court care plan, parents may be in a weak position if they want to challenge the level ofservice support or contact. More generally, information on the views of parents with children onsupervision orders is very limited and the voice of children has rarely been heard, if at all.Addressing the deficits in our knowledge and understandingIt will be clear from this exploration that there is much that we do not know regarding the useand contribution of supervision orders. But there is also some important direct and indirectevidence on what ‘does work' in terms of reducing the likelihood of supervision order placementbreakdown, reoccurrence of significant harm and fresh proceedings. In terms of direct evidence,the FDAC evaluation found that rates of reoccurrence of abuse or neglect one year after the careproceedings ended were significantly lower in the FDAC supervision order sample than in thecomparison sample (Harwin et al [2014] ‘Changing lifestyles, keeping children safe: an evaluationof the first Family Drug and Alcohol Court in care proceedings' www.nuffieldfoundation.org/evaluation-pilot-family-drug-and-alcohol-court). As there were no systematic differences in thesupervision order inputs, the indications were that the inputs from the FDAC team during theproceedings and the FDAC court process were contributory factors. However this study was verymodest in size and the follow-up evidence was mainly limited to one year. A further study fundedby the DfE Children's Social Care Innovation programme tracking the same cases will reportresults later this year on the sustainability of supervision order reunifications and returns to courtat three years follow-up (www.brunel.ac.uk/fdacresearch).Evidence from reunification studies of looked after children, studies of court care plans, andinternational evidence on factors promoting successful engagement and sustainable outcomespoint to the importance of the timing, intensity and range of service inputs (Thoburn et al,‘Returning children home from public care' (SCIE, 2012)). Further research is needed to build oninsights and provide robust evidence based on far larger sample sizes.The goals of the national study of supervision ordersand special guardianship (May 2015–July 2017)The overarching aim of this mixed methods study is to produce the first comprehensive nationalpicture of the contribution of supervision orders to family justice, children's services and tochild outcomes by assessing the extent to which they support robust sustainable family-basedalternatives to public care, prevent recurrence of significant harm and return to court for freshproceedings. The study will encompass children subject to supervision orders and their primarycarers whether carers are birth parents, step-parents, kinship or non-kinship carers. Cases will beincluded where a supervision order is made alone or in combination with other orders (eg specialguardianship and child arrangements/residence).The study incorporates three linked elements. The first will produce a national quantitative profileof all supervision orders and applications made during the observational window (April 2007–March 2016). In addition to providing annual statistics, the study takes a longitudinal perspectivethat captures the movement and profile of the child within the system over time. As a result, theSpotlight on supervision orders: what do we know and what do we need to know?4children will be followed up over time to assess legal, placement, child protection and child well-being outcomes. The second element comprises intensive analysis of five local authority sites.This component will complement the national profiling exercise because the intensive samplewill ensure we can provide a picture of cases which do not return to court, as well as those thatdo. At national level it is only possible to follow-up cases that return to court. The intensive studyincludes a further qualitative element. Stakeholder interviews will be held with professionals,children and primary carers. A participatory child-focused approach will be taken to ensure themeaningful inclusion of children aged from 7 years.This is an ambitious but hugely exciting and timely study. It is time to redress the remarkable andsustained lack of interest in supervision orders, their outcomes and the experiences of childrenand carers. This may be partly attributable to the continuing impact of the Baby P case and theinexorable rise in care proceedings (Cafcass [2015] www.cafcass.gov.uk/leaflets-resources/organisational-material/care-and-private-law-demand-statistics/care-demand-statistics.aspx). Itmay also link to the fragmentation of data sources, the lighter touch monitoring systems and theunheard voices of children and primary carers. Yet these are children whose cases are so seriousthat they were considered under the same threshold criteria as children in care proceedings.The article began by highlighting the potential legal and practical benefits of supervision orders.In a post Re B-S and Re B climate there is fresh interest in the informed consideration of allplacement options based on a full proportionality assessment and with due regard to the goal of‘rebuilding the family and preserving personal relations'. We do not know whether these casesherald a pendulum shift towards placement with birth parents or within the extended family.Certainly the current case law trends add a further relevant context to the study, as does thecontinuing harsh economic environment which has seen a significant rise in children in need.Detailed study of the law and practice relating to supervision orders, and information on outcomeswill help establish whether there is need to reform the legislative and regulatory framework. Manyparadoxes have been identified in this article. One conclusion is clear. It is time to prioritise studyof this invisible group of children and bring the topic of supervision orders out from under theradar.  

Spotlight on supervision orders : What do we know and what do we need to know?

http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/78771/1/FLJ_2016_03_Articles_07.pdf

Spotlight on supervision orders:What do we know and what do we need to know?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Lancaster E-Prints