I’ve had the pleasure of seeing a document entitled “Guidance to LFJBs on Quarterly Performance Reporting Template”. It’s a crackin’ read I can tell y’all.
So: Local Family Justice Boards have to report quarterly on their performance. And of course, as is the rage these days, they must do so by means of a template. And it’s a template that they need some guidance to conquer…
Yes, you’ve guessed it. This is about statistics. Damned statistics. I have to keep checking that the paramountcy principle hasn’t been sneakily amended on 22 April to provide that “statistical performance shall be the court’s paramount consideration” (It hasn’t).
Anyway, the LFJB has to report against KPMs and has to escalate issues of concern to the PISG and FJB. So that’s the Local Family Justice Board, Key Performance Measures and Family Justice Board. I have no clue what a PISG is but I like to think it is a typographical error for PIGS and that all DFJs (sorry, Designated Family Judges) are supposed to self-report to the Rozzers if their stats go a bit wonky.
Anyway, childish jokes aside – this is the interesting bit:
KPM 1 “For 2014-15, the Family Justice Board have agreed that the level of ambition for each LFJB for this KPM is that the average duration of s31 care or supervision cases should be within 26 – 30 weeks (averaged over the year).”
KPM 2 “For 2014-15, the Family Justice Board have agreed that the level of ambition for each LFJB for this KPM is that 60% – 70% of section 31 cases (averaged over the year) should be completed within 26 weeks.”
Read that again.
The level of ambition for 26 weeks is 60-70% of cases on average.
Basically, we’re sort of banking on 30-40% of ’em going long?
Too damned right 26 weeks ain’t a straightjacket. Padded cell anyone?
PS If anyone can help me get my head around how you square KPM 1 with KPM 2 I’d be most grateful. I don’t think they are inherently inconsistent but what do they tell us about the aspirational distribution of short cases, 26 wk cases and long cases?