header-logo header-logo

10 March 2016
Issue: 7690 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Family courts that save money

Research highlights costs-saving benefits of Family Drug and Alcohol Courts

Family Drug and Alcohol Courts (FDACs) save the public purse £2.30 for every £1 spent, new research has shown.

FDACs deal with care proceedings cases involving parental substance misuse and provide an integrated legal, social care and health response. The first FDAC launched in 2008 in London and now supports more than 40 cases per year. By the end of this month, a total of eight FDAC units will be in operation, serving 19 local authorities across 12 courts.

They have proved to be a success, leading to better outcomes when compared to normal care proceedings. A 2014 report by Brunel University, for example, found that children were less likely to go into permanent care, parents were more likely to cease their drug use and children were less likely to suffer further neglect and abuse.

Better Courts: the financial impact of the London Family Drug and Alcohol Court, published by the Centre for Justice Innovation last week, calculated that over a five-year period, FDAC keeps more children with their families, generating an average saving of £17,220 per case. Families who appear in the FDAC are less likely to return to court, which means an average saving of £2,110. More parents overcome their drug or alcohol dependency, creating savings for the NHS and the criminal justice system of about £5,300 on average.

Taken overall, the net financial saving relating to the FDAC is about £15,850. The analysis focuses on the direct costs and savings to local authorities and other state bodies, and does not take account of wider benefits such as the future wellbeing of the children involved.

The authors of the report, Neil Reeder and Stephen Whitehead, say: “Our new analysis demonstrates that FDACs save the state money.

“Across the 2014/15 caseload, the London FDAC cost £560,000 and generated gross savings of £1.29m to public sector bodies over five years. These cashable savings accrue primarily from FDAC’s better outcomes: fewer children permanently removed from their families, fewer families returning to court and less substance misuse.

“The savings generated by FDAC exceed the cost of the service within two years of the start of the case.”

Issue: 7690 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll