Families more likely to be reunified with use of Family Drug and Alcohol Courts, research finds

An evaluation of the use of Family Drug and Alcohol Courts (FDACs) carried out by Foundations has found “promising evidence” that problem-solving approaches in family courts can improve outcomes.

Foundations revealed that its findings “point in a positive direction, with children being more likely to be reunified and a higher proportion of parents ceasing to misuse drugs or alcohol”.

The evaluation was conducted to understand the effect of FDAC proceedings on reunification for children and families at the end of care proceedings compared to standard care proceedings.

The evaluation made the following key findings:

• Children with a primary carer in FDAC care proceedings were more likely to be reunified with their primary carer at the end of the care proceeding in comparison to children with a primary carer in non-FDAC care proceedings (52.0% versus 12.5%).
• A higher proportion of FDAC than comparison parents had ceased to misuse drugs or alcohol by the end of the proceedings (33.6% versus 8.1%).
• The proportion of hearings being contested was lower for FDAC than standard care proceedings (4.2% versus 23.8%).
• A lower proportion of FDAC cases used external expert witness assessments compared with non-FDAC care proceedings (7.7% versus 96.1%).
• Children in FDAC sites had lower probability of being placed in LA care compared with non-FDAC care proceedings (28.6% versus 54.7%).
• The positive outcomes for cases supported by FDAC is in line with the evidence on FDAC in the WWCSC’s [What Works for Children's Social Care's] Evidence Store and the literature base.

Foundations advised that there were limitations with the methodology and data collection evaluation, which meant that it “cannot attribute the effects found entirely to FDAC and we are unable to draw firm conclusions about impact of FDAC based on this study”.

It added: “The study largely compared outcomes for families referred to FDAC with families in the same local authority who were not referred into the intervention. However, whether families were referred to FDAC or not is based on a subjective judgement call which is likely to be based to some extent on the specific characteristics of the families, such as their level and history of substance misuse or their capacity to change.

“This means it may be that it was differences in these characteristics, rather than FDAC itself, that led to or exaggerated the differences in outcomes that the study found.”  

The organisation made four recommendations for policy and practice:

1. The Department for Education and the Care Proceedings Reform Group should consider embedding evaluation, including a cost analysis, in any scale up of problem-solving approaches in family courts.
2. The learning from the process evaluation conducted as part of this study can be used to strengthen problem-solving approaches in family court.
3. Given the overall evidence base, local commissioners should consider how Family Drug & Alcohol Court can form part of their services for families, and how it would operate alongside other substance misuse services.
4. Data collection during standard care proceedings should be improved.

Commenting on Foundations’ evaluation of FDAC, John Pearce, President of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS), said: “Wherever possible children are best brought up within their own families, supported by local services to prevent problems from escalating. It is right to seek solutions within families and to sustain them where possible and where it is in the child’s best interests to do so, but their needs and rights must remain at the heart of everything that we do.

“The use of Family Drug and Alcohol Court (FDAC) proceedings is one such example where problem solving approaches can avoid care proceedings. This research from Foundations provides a welcome analysis of the value of FDAC which found that 'families who participated in FDAC were significantly more likely to be reunified, and parents were more likely to stop misusing substances'.

"The value of problem-solving arrangements, such as FDAC, are clear to see but the piecemeal nature of new funding has meant the benefits have been limited to a small number of local authorities. ADCS would welcome a shift in approach so that all local authorities were resourced to explore new ways of working and where there is evidence of what works, all were resourced to implement such models.”