“The evaluation strategy for Sure Start local programmes is two-fold – a comprehensive long term, wide ranging national evaluation (which will be completed in July 2008), and evaluations of particular programmes to look at shorter term outcomes for each individual community.”
The above is from the attachment in Whiston’s email to me; from a document produced by Hodge’s “Sure Start” controlling team and forwarded to me by Robert Whiston. Whenever Robert W, or Coe or others talk to their MPS, or are in committee with government – LCD or CAFCASS – they should cite this from Sure Start, and say that there is no reason for it having been avoided all these years by the Family Court System and by CAFCASS. Since Sure Start institutionalises accountability in this way, there is no reason why Family Court judges etc. should not be accountable by the same methods; statistical analysis of the later comparitive death rate etc. of children of divorce who pass through the hands of each judge. Also statistical analysis of outcome (teenage pregnancy, truanting etc.) for children subjected to parentectomy compared with those where contact orders are enforced. Children are the central element in the activity of both Sure Start and the Family Courts. If too high a percentage of the children who pass through the tender hands of Judge Munby later die, or become teenage pregnant, then Judge Munby might even get himself another job without being pushed. Once judges suspected that outcome was statistically significantly worse when they allowed a child to continue to have contact with its divorced father, they would cut off fathers in order to protect their own jobs as judges. As in Surestart, accountability is an accepted feature of virtually every other kind of employment, but not included in any of the roles in our secret family court system.
Ivor Catt 18nov03