The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter Three: Developments in Family Group Conferencing

Introduction

2.3.1 This chapter begins with a brief overview of the development of FGC within each UK jurisdiction, outlining, as far as possible, what proportion of local authorities are covered, the distribution of in-house and voluntary provision and the circumstances in which an FGC is offered. This allows Scotland's profile to be considered within the broader UK context, while also giving some indication of how the agencies who took part in the study fit within their own country's provision.

2.3.2 In addition to describing their current operation, each respondent was asked about the rationale for setting up their scheme and what had promoted or detracted from its development. Responses to these questions are covered in the second half of the chapter.

Family Group Conferencing across the UK

2.3.3 Because they are working in quite small countries, respondents in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales were able to give reasonably accurate assessments of FGC coverage and development in their own country. For information on England we relied on Louise Brown's survey carried out in 2001.

2.3.4 In Northern Ireland each of the four Health Trusts has an FGC service, three being provided in-house and the fourth by Barnardo's. This means that virtually all of Northern Ireland is covered by a service covering children 'in need', those involved in the child protection system and those looked after away from home. Central government funding is available and the use of FGC is promoted through the recent introduction of targets that half of all children accommodated should have been offered an FGC prior to their admission to care and that an FGC should be convened for half of all care leavers.

2.3.5 In addition to this provision within social work services, the Barnardo's scheme has well developed school service for children at risk of exclusion from school. This scheme operates as part of the FGC service and can involve family members, but the primary focus is on resolving difficulties within the school community. A similar 'restorative conferencing' approach has been developed within residential care, with the aim of reducing the level of incidents which result in criminal charges against young people. This scheme has proved very effective, with a significant reduction in the number of incidents resulting in the police being called.

2.3.6 Interviews were held with the manager of each of the four Northern Ireland FGC services, with the Barnardo's manager putting the researcher in touch with the others. The four agencies coordinate developments through a Family Group Conferencing Network to which a country-wide restorative youth justice scheme also belongs.

2.3.7 Wales also has a strong FGC network and virtually country-wide coverage, with all but one local authority having access to an FGC service. Some respondents thought the split between voluntary agency and in-house provision was about equal. Providers range from large local authority services managing 100 conferences a year to small voluntary organisations. Information from those interviewed indicated that Welsh FGC practice has concentrated primarily on child welfare services, though at least one local authority is looking to develop work in schools and youth justice. Funding for Welsh services typically comes from a range of funding streams including central and local government and voluntary sources.

2.3.8 Wales has a strong FGC network, which adheres keenly to 'model fidelity' and the principle that private family time is an essential part of the FGC process. The network has close links with Dr Sally Holland and colleagues at Cardiff University. This collaboration has resulted in a large 'all Wales' study which is currently collating information on the implementation of plans and outcomes for children at 6 and 12 months following an FGC meeting.

2.3.9 Within Wales interviews were held with Sally Holland and her colleague, Abyd Quinn Aziz, who is taking the lead on the 'all-Wales' study. In terms of service providers, a manager from the largest local authority service was included, as was the team leader of a small voluntary service which had provided co-ordinator training for people with very wide ranging experience.

2.3.10 Based on a survey carried out in 2001, Dr Louise Brown reported that 38% of English local authorities had an FGC service with the highest level of provision in the South East. Comparing this with the level of provision in 1999 indicated a decrease in the number of new projects starting up, compared with the situation in the second half of the 1990s. At the time when this survey was carried out there was an even split between schemes which were contracted out and those provided in-house.

2.3.11 There are now several well-established English FGC schemes which have been independently evaluated. For this review managers were interviewed from two local authority schemes: Kent, which has grown rapidly since being set up four years ago and Essex which began in 1995 , making it one of the first in England. Kent now has 30 co-ordinators working in 5 teams across the county. These cover the full range of situations affecting children in need, children in need of protection and those who are looked after. In addition the teams offer a truancy service to schools and a group of schools is in the process of commissioning a service for children about to be excluded. Kent also has a small separate team working in adult services with older people and people with learning difficulties. In Essex there are three strands to the FGC service:

• Children and Young People's team (set up in 1995- funded by the local authority and now mainstreamed)
• Restorative Justice Team (set up in 2000- funded in 1-3 year cycles )
• Early intervention and schools (set up in 2002- Children Fund funding which is subject to review)

2.3.12 The manager of a Hampshire voluntary project dedicated to families affected by domestic violence was also interviewed. In addition two English academics, Louise Brown and Peter Marsh were included along with Paul Nixon who has extensive experience of co-ordinating conferences and managing FGC schemes and has researched and written widely on the subject.

2.3.13 In Scotland, Children 1 ^st is the leading service provider, delivering a scheme in thirteen authorities. In addition Edinburgh has an in-house service, so that 14 local authorities (42%) currently have access to a service. Each of Children 1 ^st's schemes has been developed in collaboration with the local authority to suit local need, so arrangements for service delivery vary. Some co-ordinator teams are based in Children 1 ^st offices, while others share premises with social work staff. Some schemes only accept referrals from social work teams, while in others any of the 'helping' services' can also refer. Families may self-refer to half of the schemes. Children 1 ^st has established the Scottish Family Group Conferencing network and works closely with similar networks across the UK and Europe. Its practice adheres closely to the standard FGC model.

2.3.14 The arrangements in the City of Edinburgh are somewhat different. The service is in-house, with two co-ordinators who are employed by the council, but do not have case-management responsibility for the families referred. Unusually in the UK, Edinburgh requires that co-ordinators are qualified social workers with post-qualifying training and experience in child protection. This may reflect that the Edinburgh scheme has a somewhat different approach from Children 1 ^st. Though the commitment to working in partnership with families is equally strong, the emphasis in Edinburgh is on ensuring the principles are adhered to, rather than necessarily following a standard model. Thus, while a conference with private family time might well be part of the process, this is not viewed as essential. In some cases smaller meetings with relevant family members might be arranged instead. The key is still to ask families to come up with a plan for their children and to support them in doing this. The aim is to integrate this approach as far as possible into the mainstream work of the department.

Developing a Family Group Conferencing Scheme

Taking the first steps

2.3.15 Asked about why their local authority had decided to set up an FGC scheme, virtually all respondents said that they wanted to find a better way of working with families; a fairer and more respectful way which would recognise and build on families' strengths. It was not unusual for those interviewed to describe themselves or whoever had started the service as 'passionate' about this approach because it showed that if families are given the chance, most can give their children a lot. A strong commitment to working in partnership with parents was voiced by voluntary service providers too, but they had set out to change and enhance other people's practice, rather than their own, so perhaps lacked the sense of outrage expressed by some local authority staff determined to change the way things were done on their patch.

2.3.16 Given this sense of a need for change, it was often a set of chance circumstances which had resulted in the project being set up. A key manager might have attended a conference where FGC was discussed or met a former colleague who had some experience of this way of working. Typically a small group of people then persuaded their authority to fund a pilot and the service had developed from there.

2.3.17 A few respondents said that this kind of personal commitment was necessary to get an FGC scheme off the ground, because there would always be resistance to a way of working which involved social workers relinquishing some of their control and working in a more open way. One interviewee said that this reluctance reflected the risk averse nature of current policy and practice, but should also be recognised as resulting from unconscious as well as conscious motives of some front-line social workers and managers. It was suggested that a clear strategy and considerable energy were therefore needed to establish FGC as an integral part of child welfare practice, rather than a peripheral 'add-on' offered to a few families.

2.3.18 Alongside a wish to work more meaningfully in partnership with parents, there had often been practical reasons for setting up the service. One authority had specifically hoped to reduce the number of young people accommodated and several others hoped that this might be a beneficial by product. One scheme had been set up with a view to finding a more effective way of responding to families referred to the Intake team, while a voluntary organisation, the Daybreak Dove project, had been commissioned to set up a FGC service for families referred to the police following an incident of domestic violence, its aim being to reduce re-referrals and protect and/or improve the lives of the children concerned.

2.3.19 A number of respondents warned against defining expected outcomes in too specific terms at the start, partly because changes, for example in the number of children accommodated, would be shaped many factors beyond the influence of FGC. It was also suggested that too specific aims might result in the use of FGC being restricted to certain situations, e.g. when children were likely to be accommodated, whereas it could be imaginatively used in a range of situations. In contrast, some of the managers in Scottish local authorities were keen that FGCshould only be used in specific situations which had been identified as a priority, for example when a child was likely to be accommodated or considered for permanency. It was suggested that an expensive service such as FGC should not usually be used to sort out conflictual relationships or simply as means of increasing support to a family. A number of respondents mentioned that as FGC became part of mainstream practice, more of the families referred were 'higher tariff', so less urgent situations could no longer be catered for. Whether this is a welcome development depends on the extent to which FGC is viewed as a preventive service.

2.3.20 This range of comments highlights that there were two broad views on what it meant for FGC to become 'established' practice:

• consideration would be given to using this approach in a wide range of situations;
• a referral would be made in all situations which met agreed criteria.

2.3.21 Some agencies had also hoped that the partnership principles which underpin FGC would take hold and begin to influence mainstream practice, but very few thought that this was taking place. Though there had usually been training for social workers prior to a scheme being introduced, several respondents pointed out that social workers were far more likely to be influenced by participating in the FGC process, rather than through training alone. It was suggested that, though some social workers appreciated the opportunity to work in a more open, participative way, it was difficult to sustain this while working within a system of professionally led decision making and a culture which encouraged an element of suspicion of parents and other family members.

Becoming established practice

2.3.22 Three quite distinct elements were mentioned as contributing to FGC becoming mainstream:

1. making FGC mandatory
2. obtaining sustained funding
3. recruiting co-ordinators from among social work staff.

mandatoryFGCMaking

2.3.23 Comments made by interviewees provided much support for Doolan's assertion that a degree of mandating is needed if FGC is to become established practice (Doolan, 1999). Three levels of mandate were described:

Good practice - where within procedures and policy documents, FGC is promoted as good practice in certain specified situations;

Procedural mandate: procedures identify certain key situations in which FGC has to be offered to the family i.e. the co-ordinator approaches the family. This requirement is usually introduced at points where social work services will potentially take over responsibility and parents and children will lose a significant element of choice e.g. child is to be registered on the child protection register, to be accommodated or considered for permanent placement outwith the family.

Legally required:FGC is required as part of the legal process and neither family nor professionals have any choice in the matter.

2.3.24 Within most agencies in which those interviewed worked, the level of mandate remained at the level of recommended good practice. The main drawback cited was that there was a very high level of social worker discretion, so families who might have benefited could miss out, with FGC resources being devoted to cases which were less of a priority.

2.3.25 With central government targets being introduced in Northern Ireland, there is reportedly increasing pressure on social workers to refer families for FGC before a child is either accommodated or leaves care. The Ulster Community Trust had recently gone further down the mandatory route by requiring that a referral be made in certain situations, irrespective of whether parents were in agreement. These situations are: a child is assessed as needing to be accommodated; a permanency plan is being proposed (unless the child is very young); rehabilitation from foster or residential care is being considered; a residential or foster placement is ending. Kent has introduced similar provisions. In each of these agencies the potential benefits for the child were thought to outweigh the disadvantages of over-riding parental wishes. In time it is expected that systematic information on the impact of 'going mandatory' will be collated. However one of the consequences identified on an anecdotal basis was that cases involving higher risk were being referred for FGC, so its role was being developed with 'higher tariff' cases.

2.3.26 One of the Scottish authorities included in the review, Fife, was planning to move towards requiring social workers to refer for FGC when accommodation was being considered for child under the age of 11. However there were no plans at this stage to over-ride parental objections, though one manager suggested that this should be an option in situations where social work services were taking on parental responsibilities.

2.3.27 Within the UK, FGC is not legally required in any situation, though one respondent was aware of new guidance on care proceedings from the Constitutional Office for England and Wales which would recommend that a FGC conference should have taken place prior to a court hearing.

2.3.28 There was little enthusiasm among interviewees for a legal mandate being introduced at an earlier stage. Several of those interviewed had direct experience or good knowledge of developments in New Zealand and, drawing on this highlighted some of the potential disadvantages of legal mandating. Within New Zealand there are indications that FGC has become just another part of the child welfare system, with families being coerced into participating. One interviewee reported that FGC was introduced too early in the system, so that by the time a serious decision had to be made, some families had already had several Family Group Meetings and felt there was little new to bring to the situation. In addition, examples were given of families being given little choice about where or when a family meeting should take place, with social work service offices sometimes being used as a venue. This 'cutting corners' was explained in terms of the FGC service being insufficiently resourced to cover all cases in accordance with core FGC principles. Thus, rather than FGC enhancing partnership with families across the New Zealand child welfare system, there are indications that the FGC process has become diluted to fit with a professionally led, even punitive ethos.

2.3.29 It was suggested by a number of interviewees, both service providers and academics, that an element of procedural mandate is required if FGC is to progress from being a specialist, relatively peripheral practice to becoming an integral part of child welfare systems. Its introduction against parental wishes in some UK agencies suggests that the definition of 'partnership' extends to the wider family, not just parents and that the notion of children having a 'right' to their wider family being involved in decision making is gaining ground.

Reliable funding

2.3.30 The New Zealand experience provides a good example of how important adequate funding is in the longer term. This was recognised by a number of service providers who said it was essential to sustain for a level of funding which allowed the core principles of practice to be sustained. ²⁷

2.3.31 Schemes were typically financed through a range of funding streams from central and local government and voluntary funds. Often the funding was time-limited and/or subject to review which could undermine future planning. Though widely acknowledged as a well established, high quality service, the Barnardo's project in Northern Ireland had expected its central government funding to finish last year, though in the end funds were made available to extend rather than close the service. Projects facing an uncertain future ran the risk of losing experienced staff.

2.3.32 This level of insecurity was removed when local authorities took on responsibility for the service, budgeting for it within mainstream provision. As a non-statutory service, FGC was still viewed as subject to cuts, should overall budgets be reduced, but long-term, mainstream funding was welcomed as providing much more security than time-limited streams. Several respondents commented that FGC continued to be subject to more stringent requirements to demonstrate value for money than those applied to traditional ways of working.

Recruiting co-ordinators from among social work staff

2.3.33 The predominant view expressed in interviews was that FGC co-ordinators should not also be working as social workers. This was partly because of the need for independence from the agency with case responsibility and partly because the roles were seen as quite different, with social workers adopting a directive approach, while co-ordinators' work facilitative. However in one Irish authority co-ordinators had been recruited from the existing pool of social workers. Additional training was given and care taken to ensure that co-ordinators had no connections with the family in their social worker capacity. With these precautions, the manager if the FGC service thought this arrangement had been very effective in increasing referrals and influencing wider social work practice.

Broadening the scope

2.3.34 As noted in the previous section, a number of authorities had extended the scope of their group conferencing work to include situations outwith mainstream child welfare. Work in schools was developing, as were youth justice interventions, with a separate national restorative youth justice service in Northern Ireland.

2.3.35 The school work in Northern Ireland, Kent and Essex focused on negotiating agreements between pupils, staff and families, as appropriate. The decision to convene an FGC usually followed preliminary stages of mediation/reconciliation not managing to achieve a solution. A similar staged approach applied in Barnardo's work in residential units for young people in Ireland.

2.3.36 Within youth justice schemes there was often a dual focus on the needs and deeds of the young person, which might mean that the conference was in two parts. Typically the 'deeds' would be dealt with first, if appropriate involving the victim, then the 'needs' addressed through the usual FGC format. A scheme of this kind had been developed over recent months in East Lothian, though at the point when staff were interviewed, all but one referral made for a standard FGC conference, rather than encompassing a restorative justice element.

2.3.37 Flintshire in Wales had recently introduced a 'community conferencing' scheme which involved bringing together young people viewed as troublesome and local people most directly affected by their behaviour. This replicated the standard FGC model in most respects, including preparatory meetings, but did not involve private time.

2.3.38 The Daybreak Dove project was an example of developing FGC to respond to situations involving domestic violence. A number of respondents, including two from Scotland, mentioned an interest in exploring the potential of FGC as a response to domestic violence. A few other respondents had used FGC in situations where contact was contentious between parents following separation or divorce.

2.3.39 Several respondents talked about the potential for FGC within adult services, but Kent was the only authority included which had actually established scheme for older people and those with learning difficulties. A few examples were given of effectively using FGC in collaboration with mental health services in order to develop safe care arrangements for children whose mother had a mental illness.

2.3.40 It is evident that the basic family group decision making model can be used in a wide range of situations. There is also a degree of overlap between meetings involving family members seeking solutions to child care problems and meetings in schools, residential units or community settings which focus on resolving problems connected to some aspect of a child or young person's behaviour. This review is focussing primarily on the use of FGC in situations where the wider family are brought together to make decisions about and plan for the safe care of their family's children.

Summary Points

2.3.41

• Access to an FGC scheme varies across the UK. In Wales and Northern Ireland most statutory social work agencies have access to a FGC scheme. Coverage in England and Wales is at approximately 40%.;
• Service providers interviewed were from a range of statutory and voluntary agencies across the UK. Four academics who contributed had completed or were currently working on FGC research.;
• A number of service providers said that their FGC scheme had been set up by one or more managers who were 'passionate' about developing more participative ways of working with parents.;
• Management ownership of FGC was viewed as crucial to overcoming resistance from social work staff within statutory social work services.;
• It was recognised to be difficult for FGC to make the shift from a peripheral service to becoming established practice. Three elements were cited as useful in promoting this:
  • requiring in procedures that FGC be considered or offered to families in certain situations;
  • obtaining long-term funding
  • recruiting co-ordinators from among social work staff.
• Some agencies had broadened the scope of the FGC to include conferencing in youth justice services, schools, residential units and in situations involving conflict in the community. There was family involvement in some of these situations, but also an increased emphasis on restorative practice or mediation.

« Previous | Contents | Next »