header-logo header-logo

Family courts that save money

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

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll