The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter Two: What exactly is Family Group Conferencing?

Introduction

2.2.1 As noted in the literature review, there is broad agreement that Family Group Conferencing is a means of involving family members, including extended family and friends, in decision making and planning for children about whom concerns have been expressed in relation to their safety or well-being. The usual arrangement is that a family meeting takes place following a preparation period of 4-6 weeks during which an independent co-ordinator both speaks with key relatives and friends identified by parents and children and invites them to the family meeting. The aim of the preparation time is to give participants an opportunity to hear about the problems and begin to think about how they might contribute to the solution. The conference itself is usually in three parts:

1. an information sharing session in which the social worker and other professionals outline the reasons for the meeting and decisions to be made, while also providing any information the family needs to make a plan;
2. private family time during which family members meet on their own and work out a plan;
3. the plan is discussed and agreed by family members and professionals.

2.2.2 If child protection or looked after conferences and review systems are in place, the family plan may also need to be agreed by that forum, so FGC contributes to, but does not replace professional decision making. It is usual for a family member to be appointed to oversee the implementation of the plan. The family can decide to request an FGC review and most do, though timing varies depending on need and circumstances.

2.2.3 This definition and description of the FGC process were broadly accepted by all stakeholders. However the importance of adhering to the format described above varied. By far the majority of interviewees considered that the standard model should be retained, with private family time viewed as essential to ensuring family members remain in charge of their part of the process. However a few took the view that FGC should not be understood as a model or project, but rather as a process in which adhering to certain underpinning principles, rather than a set format, was key. There was unanimous agreement that the preparation process was crucial to successful decision making and planning, but divergent views about how essential it was to have private family time.

2.2.4 As people talked about implementing this process, it became clear that describing the content and format of FGC was not sufficient to understand its nature. It was also important to understand what it constituted within the present child welfare system. FGC was said to be a means of implementing the partnership, rights based ethos of current children's legislation, yet also to be counter-cultural. It was said to challenge traditional power relationships between families and professionals, while also being an intensely practical method which effectively operates within existing systems and structures. It follows that any assessment of the potential of FGC should take account of how it operates on these different levels.

2.2.5 This chapter explores what FGCis in the sense of what it constitutes and contributes within current child welfare services in the UK. It incorporates comments made throughout the interviews, but draws primarily on responses to one of the first questions put to interviewees 'what, if anything, do you think FGC can offer children and families, which other forms of decision making and planning cannot?'.

2.2.6 Replies indicated that FGC was primarily valued as a means of introducing ethical practice which acknowledges the rights, while also fostering the capacities of children and their families. It was also viewed by most respondents as contributing in a very practical way to safeguarding children and promoting their welfare. Yet, despite these strengths, FGC was said to present a challenge, requiring front-line staff to be more open with families and put more trust in their judgement than was common practice. So FGC can also be understood as a reaction to perceived over-reliance on professionally driven plans and procedures. But, as several respondents pointed out, it is not the only possible approach to effective partnership with parents and families. Hence the relationship between FGC and other kinds of work with families also merits attention. These are the issues which this chapter considers.

FGC as ethical practice: acknowledging the rights and capacities of parents and children

'Empowering' families / implementing partnership

2.2.7 Asked what was distinctive about what FGC offered, many respondents referred to families being accorded more power, thus changing the relationship with professionals and enabling families to maximise their capacity to care for their children:

"Primarily that it's led by the family and when you speak to families, that's the key that involves them. They feel that they are leading it, not being told what to do"
Service provider, Scotland

"The value base, the belief that families can make their own plans and resolve their own issues. It's not the deficiency model that social workers have"
Service provider, Wales

"they turn on their head the usual child protection meeting in which the decision making is overwhelmingly professional and is imposed"
Service provider, England

"It's great to see families who start off anxious, angry with the department, no sense of what they can do, gradually become empowered, come up with a safe plan for their children and be able to implement it"
Service provider, Northern Ireland

2.2.8 The title of Children 1 ^st's recent review of their work 'Releasing the Power of the Family' also underlines the centrality of empowerment to the FGC approach.

2.2.9 As the quotations above indicate, FGC was often viewed as a way of counteracting professional dominance and a perceived tendency for social workers to underestimate or discount what family members might have to offer. While the rhetoric of legislation and policy encourages partnership between parents and professionals, it was widely argued that in practice a 'risk averse' culture encouraged social workers to distrust parents and family members. In addition social workers' high workloads meant they typically responded in routinised ways, lacking the time to recognise the uniqueness of each child's situation, get to know the extended family and think through what each set of relatives or friends might have to offer. Several interviewees warned against blaming social workers. Instead it was important to recognise that a pre-occupation with risk and professional responsibility within the present system created a culture in which parents and families were viewed as more likely to be part of the problem, than part of the solution. In one English authority (Kent) the FGC service was set up with the explicit aim of changing the predominant culture within social services. Though an extensive and highly regarded scheme had been developed, a recent independent review of the service showed little evidence of changing attitudes among social workers, indicating how intransigent certain aspects of the present culture can be.

2.2.10 Few of those interviewed challenged the argument that more effective ways of working in partnership with families should be sought or that the present arrangements were inadequate, but some did question whether the term 'empowerment' was entirely appropriate, without some qualification. Comments centred either on guarding against a too benign view of family power or underestimating the value of professional knowledge and expertise. A few respondents pointed out that the power of families could be destructive, so in certain situations needed to be carefully managed, particularly in situations where there might have been violence to a child or other family member. Service providers who expressed this view strongly believed that most families had strengths which should be fostered, but they also cautioned that considerable skill and watchfulness was needed to weave a path through complex, powerful family dynamics. Inevitably the need to manage risk varied, depending on the family situation and context in which FGC was offered. ²⁶ In a slightly different vein, one of the academics interviewed urged an element of caution against paying insufficient attention to professional knowledge about what worked best for children, especially since there was as yet little reliable evidence of improved outcomes from FGC decisions. However another academic pointed out that empowering families did not necessarily result in social workers having less power, since both could be working in tandem to reach the same end, and family involvement may increase the social worker's capacity to implement plans in practice.

2.2.11 Acknowledging these different perspectives, one interviewee with extensive practice and research experience suggested that it was more helpful to think of FGC as 'brokering' the relationship between social workers and families, that is providing a practical means of boosting the strengths of professionals and social workers and so enabling them to work more effectively in partnership. Another experienced manager commented that the use of power was inherent in all decision making within child welfare and that FGC went some way towards redressing the balance in favour of parents and children, thus increasing fairness.

Taking account of children's rights

2.2.12 In addition to promoting meaningful partnership with parents, FGC was described as a distinctive way of according children rights both to participate in decisions which affected them and to be cared for within their family, should that be at all possible. The latter argument underpinned the views expressed by some respondents that access to FGC should be made mandatory in certain situations, for example before a child was accommodated or considered for permanency planning.

2.2.13 Several people argued that when relatives came together to plan for children it conveyed a powerful message to the young person that their family cared about them. There was seen to be value in this, even if the young person still had to be accommodated away from home or the outcome was different from what he or she would have wanted.

2.2.14 One respondent took the view that children also had a right to well-resourced, well qualified personnel who would get to know young people over time and help them manage and work through the personal difficulties they faced. This respondent feared that too great an emphasis on the importance of the family might detract from recognising the key role of specialist, professional staff.

The central importance of the value base

2.2.15 The focus on empowering families, working in partnership with parents and taking children's rights seriously reflects that the popularity of FGC owes much to its value base. It was not unusual for respondents to say they felt 'passionately' that this system should be developed and made more widely available. Treating people with respect and in accordance with current legislative requirements was widely viewed as valuable in itself. One respondent said children came out 'holding their heads high', adding that the same could be said of few traditional decision making meetings or conferences.

2.2.16 In addition to being an ethical way of working, FGC was widely considered to make a distinctive and effective contribution to practice and plans which would safeguard children and promote their well-being.

FGC as effective practice

2.2.17 Whilst most respondents emphasised the value of FGC as means of working effectively in partnership, about two-thirds gave equal weight to the practical advantages of this model. One of the most frequently mentioned benefits was that plans were more comprehensive, simply because more people contributed their perspectives and resources. The greater involvement of fathers and other male relatives was cited several times as an important advantage.

2.2.18 It was also suggested that plans were more realistic because family members knew whether their relatives were likely to deliver and because the informal atmosphere allowed parents to say if they thought a plan would not work, this being much more difficult in formal, professionally led case conferences.

2.2.19 Some people argued that because it involved people who knew the family well, FGC provided additional insights into the risks facing a child and times at which additional supervision or support might be needed. Another advantage was that family members often volunteered to provide additional input at key points in time.

2.2.20 More honest and transparent information sharing was also attributed to FGC. Social workers were required to explain their concerns in straightforward language and to address all family members together, so that different or inaccurate understandings could be addressed. FGC also involved parents being more honest with other members of their families about difficulties which might otherwise have remained secret or not discussed. This openness in itself was thought to benefit children, freeing them from the burden of keeping secrete and often resulting in family members realising parents or children needed more help.

2.2.21 Whilst examples were given of assessments being informed by FGC and of situations in which the process had enabled families to overcome deep-seated antagonisms, most respondents were clear that FGC was essentially a decision making process rather than assessment or therapeutic practice. However a few recognised some overlap between the two.

2.2.22 Most respondents highlighted practical advantages from FGC, but several also pointed out that it was not a panacea which could compensate for deficiencies in the child welfare system. Several acknowledged that plans were sometimes ignored or forgotten by busy social workers and that neither follow-up services nor outcomes were routinely monitored. Several respondents urged caution in developing FGC as a decision making tool, at the expense of making resources available for core services. The ideal of all social workers being able to work in this way was viewed as desirable, but difficult to achieve without quite far reaching changes.

FGC as a challenge

2.2.23 When asked to identify what was distinctive about FCG, most respondents referred to it as in some way compensating for deficiencies in the present system. It was more respectful, more honest, more holistic. Some also said this was more how social workers wanted to work, but just as many said it was difficult for social workers to let go some of their control and learn to recognise and trust families' strengths. This was partly because they had little time for more than routinised responses and partly because the present system had dual expectations in that social workers were encouraged to work in partnership with parents, whilst also urged to be suspicious of families who might put children at risk or harm them. It was widely argued that, though many successful FGC services are now in operation, changing to a more participative way of working with parents is not easy, either for organisations or individual social workers.

2.2.24 FGC also presents a challenge to researchers who want to assess its capacity to improve outcomes for children. As reported in the literature review, evidence of improved outcomes for children is growing, but remains patchy and inconclusive. Several people interviewed cautioned against failing to appreciate the practical value of FGC simply because it might be difficult to measure benefits and/or to attribute them specifically to the influence of the family's involvement in the decision making process. Several arguments were put forward to the effect that the moral case for FGC is so strong that it should continue to be developed unless clear evidence emerges that it produces worse outcomes than traditional decision making approaches. This in some ways challenges too narrow notions about the kinds of research evidence which would support the development of FGC.

Family Group Conferencing and Family Work

2.2.25 Though no standard question was put to interviewees about the relationship between FGC and other forms of family work, this issue emerged in a number of interviews, most of them with Scottish stakeholders. No-one interviewed thought that Family Group Conferencing was unhelpful in itself, but a few cautioned against viewing it as the only or even main way of involving parents and the wider family in planning children's care and meeting their needs. Several argued that all work with families should be based on respectful engagement with parents and children, that no specific model should be put forward as suitable for all families, that decision-making was only one part of the process and that, for most families with serious difficulties, support would be needed over a longer period. There were concerns that FGC would be seen as a 'quick fix', a way of significantly improving services to children and families in itself, whereas a much wider range of different kinds of skilled family work would be needed to achieve this. In particular, respondents mentioned good training for social workers in working with children and families as key to increasing agencies' capacity to cater for current need.

2.2.26 Even the most ardent supporters of FGC did not disagree with the essence of these arguments. Few saw FGC as a panacea or failed to appreciate that its capacity to make life better for children would often depend on the availability of appropriate support over the longer term. Yet there were clear differences of opinion between the small number of people who urged caution in placing too much faith and resources in FGC and others who believed it should be available, even mandatory, for all children and families in certain situations. To some extent differences of opinion about the potential or legitimacy of FGC resulted from different understandings of its aims and rationale. Teasing some of these out may help clarify the terms of the debate in subsequent chapters.

2.2.27 It is an appealing argument that the importance of FGC lies in its underpinning partnership principles and that these should pervade the system, rather than be exemplified in one decision making model. Advocates of FGC agree with this, but also point out that certain aspects of the current system strongly mitigate against working in partnership with families, so that specific models of practice are needed to counter the predominant culture. FGC is seen as important because it ensures that partnership principles are adhered to in one discrete, but key, part of decision-making and planning processes. The experience of several of those interviewed was that, without a clear model, professional dominance will inevitably re-emerge. This experience was sometimes used to justify a fairly rigid adherence to key elements of FGC, such as private family time. It follows that a key characteristic of FGC is its explicit aim to change the power relationships between family members and child welfare professionals, with a view to influencing how social workers then work with families in other situations. The minority of interviewees who were less enthusiastic about FGC also wanted social workers to be more responsive to families' perspectives and wishes, but saw this as happening through increased awareness, training and resources for professionals, rather than empowering family members.

2.2.28 A second criticism of FGC s was that a somewhat doctrinaire approach was adopted when deciding which members of the extended family would be invited to conferences, so that some would be present irrespective of their relevance to the situation or whether the parents wanted them to be there. This approach was contrasted with other forms of systemic family work in which members of the wider family would be involved as appropriate, but only for a specific purpose and in agreement with the parents and child. It was viewed as important that the decision to involve extended family should emerge from on-going work and occur in the context of a trusting working relationship between the worker and family.

2.2.29 In many respects this description did not correspond with the practice described by interviewees directly involved in delivering FGC. Whilst involving the extended family was viewed as central, their attendance was virtually always sanctioned by parents and children, with considerable negotiation and preparation typically going into the process. However two service providers interviewed said that their agency had recently made FGC mandatory in certain situations, even when parents disagreed, a move which highlights that FGC is part of a decision-making rather than therapeutic process.

2.2.30 It is true that the FGC co-ordinator is introduced specifically to convene the conference, so has a short-lived relationship with the family. This is consistent with the task-focused, facilitative nature of the FGC model, as opposed to traditional therapeutic approaches in which the relationship with the worker can be central. FGC does not claim to be an alternative to long-term work with children and parents. Rather it focuses on supporting families to make practical plans which are likely to keep children safe and improve their quality of life.

2.2.31 Several service providers interviewed emphasised that FGC is essentially a decision-making model. Though better informed assessment and changes in family relationships may be positive by-products of the process, the purpose of FGC is to enable family members to come up with a plan. One of the alleged strengths of FGC is that this clear practical task enables families to find common ground and think of ways in which individual family members can contribute to supporting the child and/or parents. The following extract from an interview with one of the Children 1 ^st managers conveys the task focussed, facilitating way in which the co-ordinator works during the preparation process:

"You.. need strong skills in negotiating and also the ability not to jump in- not to become the social worker and be advising people. You have to be able to absorb a lot of what people say, then help them to put that in order and prioritise- what are the really important things here? What would make a difference? Using things like a solution focused therapy way of working- getting people to say - OK what am I saying? what do I think has to happen?- and holding all that in your head because you might be going round talking to 15 people. You're not doing the assessment yourself, what you're doing is getting them to think through what they think matters. You're trying to say to people - look, I think what you're saying is really important- what would enable you to say that in the meeting? You're working out what they need to support them to do that - do they need an advocate or is there someone in the family who can help?. You're using a range of skills, doing a bit of assessment yourself about what are the key issues here- and also having an eye to whether there are any safety issues, drug issues or others which come out with some families. Things the family can deal with and any that need to be passed on."

Children 1 ^st Manager

2.2.32 Some impressive examples of results from this kind of process were described. One case involved two extended families coming together to make a plan for children's care, despite having been at loggerheads following a murder within the family. This meant that people who initially refused to speak to each other had reached a point where they were able to cooperate enough to make sure that traumatised and bereaved children were brought up within their family, rather than being accommodated. This kind of outcome may have involved a certain amount of shift in how family members were coping with a very traumatic event, but, unlike family therapy or other forms of family work, FGC does not specifically set out to achieve this kind of fundamental psychological or emotional change.

2.2.33 One of the academics interviewed, Sally Holland, suggested that there may be some value in acknowledging the 'therapeutic' potential of FGC and, with a family therapist colleague, has written about the similarities and differences between FGC and family therapy (Holland and Rivet 2006). Their key point is that the distinctions between the two may be narrowing, as modern family therapy becomes a more facilitated rather than guided process and the emotional benefits from some FGC practice is recognised. However there is some reluctance among FGC professionals to emphasise similarities with other forms of family work, because within FGC family members are viewed as competent partners, rather than people with problems and the process is constituted as an empowering form of decision making, rather than therapy.

2.2.34 The purpose of this section was to highlight the relationship between FGC and other forms of family work. The issues raised are relevant to questions about how FGC fits within current service.

Summary Points

2.2.35

• FGC is an approach to decision making about children which involves the extended family and follows a well developed model.;
• FGC is valued as a means of 'empowering' families by translating the rhetoric of partnership into practice.;
• Some respondents cautioned against the unqualified use of the term 'empowerment', pointing out that is some families power could be used destructively. Others warned against undervaluing professional knowledge and expertise. It was suggested that FGC might be viewed as 'brokering' the power relationship between families and social work staff.;
• FGC was viewed as a way of according children the rights both to participate in decisions which affect them and to be cared for within their family, if at all possible.;
• FGC was also viewed as an effective means of producing comprehensive and realistic plans which were owned by the wider family. The greater involvement of father and other male relatives was widely commented on.;
• Several respondents warned against overestimating FGC's capacity to improve children's lives, without a corresponding increase in core services.;
• Despite its acknowledged advantages, FGC was said to present a challenge to current social work practice because its ethos promoted partnership with parents, whereas the mainstream system is professionally led.;
• FGC is a task-centred decision making process. It may at times contribute to assessment and or change in aspects of family relationships, but it does not set out to achieve this.

« Previous | Contents | Next »