Evaluation of Family Drug and Alcohol Courts

There were limitations with the methodology and data collection in this evaluation which mean that we cannot attribute the effects found entirely to FDAC and we are unable to draw firm conclusions about impact of FDAC based on this study. The positive outcomes we found for cases supported by FDAC is in line with the evidence on FDAC in the wider evidence base. 

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: We agree that there is promising evidence to support the use of problem-solving approaches in family courts, but to conclusively show the impact of FDAC, a more robust comparison, provided by either a QED with better data, or an RCT, is required. Embedding this further evaluation in any scale up would enable more families to benefit from extra support, while building the evidence Government needs to assure itself that problem-solving approaches in family courts improve outcomes and present good value for money.  

Bearing in mind the above caveat, we found: 

• 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%). 
• There were no statistically significant differences between the group that received letters and control groups in relation to attendance of meetings, engagement score, abstinence from substance use or family reunification. 
• There was very mixed evidence about the acceptability of the letters to staff and parents. Some viewed the letters as beneficial, motivational, hopeful and positive. 
• Other staff and parents were sceptical about the value of the letters. Some parents were angry, upset, confused, or viewed the letters as validating unhelpful behaviours about substance abuse. 
• We found that the Post Proceedings Support (PPS) model aligned with the FDAC model, using the same professional and administrative structures, and provides substantial support for parents after graduation from FDAC. It was generally well received by parents and professionals. Families who completed the PPS had higher sustained cessation, higher family reunification and lower long-term family disruption than families in previous FDAC only studies. However, it may not be sufficient for all families due to differences in the recovery process, making wider replication of the PPS model unlikely.  
• We identified consistent positive impacts for both FDAC parents and mentors who took part in the parent mentoring intervention. For parents, enhanced parental wellbeing, resilience, engagement with FDAC and improved family functioning were observed. Mentors had improved self-confidence, life aspirations and increased capacity to ensure successful recovery. The mento-mentee relationship was also perceived positively.