« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Chapter Four: Family Group Conferencing Across the Child Welfare Spectrum
Introduction
2.4.1 This chapter focuses primarily on respondents' answers to questions about the situations in which FGC had been found to be most helpful and/or unhelpful. Responses covered the stage children and families had reached in the child welfare system, the level of seriousness of the problems and the nature of the difficulties or risks. Discussion in relation to these questions often also covered what considerations promoted or presented obstacles to the use of FGC in different situations.
2.4.2 Few respondents said that certain features of a situation should automatically rule out consideration of FGC. More usually, a family's unsuitability would emerge during the preparation process. FGC was considered unlikely to be helpful when the young person concerned could not be engaged in the process, when family members did not accept that there was a problem to be solved and when there was little sign during the preparation period that family members would be able to put disagreements to one side in order to focus on a plan. Where risks were unclear, especially in relation to sexual abuse, FGC was not often considered. However in most situations, the preparation time provided an opportunity to work towards family members being able to take part in a productive conference. Indeed, several service provider respondents mentioned that it was not unusual for a plan to emerge from these preliminary discussions, avoiding the need to convene a full conference.
2.4.3 Among service providers and academics the predominant view was that FGC could be helpful in a wide range of situations. Whilst recognising that individual children might span more than one system, for example be on the child protection register but also accommodated, this chapter will look at the issues which arose in relation to three specific areas of work: child protection and domestic violence; neglect and children in need; children either at risk of being accommodated, accommodated or leaving care.
Child Protection and Domestic Violence
2.4.4 The use of FGC in situations involving violence to children or vulnerable adults presents particular challenges. In this section relevant data on these two situations are considered separately, then some common issues to do with managing risk are identified.
Child Protection
2.4.5 When asked about the use of FGC in relation to children involved in the child protection system, several respondents indicated that this was less frequent than it might be. Three reasons were commonly offered: that families and workers already had to attend many meetings; that social workers became accustomed to and were reluctant to alter a well-established sequence of report-writing and decision making meetings; that involving the family, particularly giving them more power, would increase the risk to the child.
2.4.6 Despite these constraints, most service providers interviewed had experience of practice in this field. Essex routinely received referrals at all stages in the child protection process and found that on average half of families would engage. They and other respondents were therefore able both to suggest ways round the obstacles cited above and to compare different kinds of practice. It was suggested that the timing of a family group meeting was a matter which needed careful consideration.
2.4.7 One option was to refer for FGC before the child protection case conference. The advantage of this option was that the family was often strongly motivated to avoid registration. The disadvantage was that social workers would still be assessing the risks, so the co-ordinator's preparation visits could be taking place while there was still some uncertainty about what options might be acceptable or safe for the child. If the child protection case conference was delayed to allow an FGC to take place, the social worker would be required to visit weekly until the plan had been approved. Several respondents gave examples of families coming together to make a plan for an unborn child whose mother was drug dependent. In this situation there was time to make a plan and have it approved before and/or shortly after the baby was born. FGC was said to have allowed a number of children to remain in or be returned to their mother's care, with family members providing the necessary care, support and supervision to make the situation safe.
2.4.8 A second option was to refer to FGC after the case conference had taken place. The advantage was that the risks were better understood, but if the decision to register had already been made and social worker visits were in place, the family had less scope to reduce statutory involvement in their lives and so might not see the point. In some instances it was suggested that the FGC meeting could 'put the flesh on the bones' of a care plan. However the chair of the child-protection case conference had to agree the plan and if agreement was not forthcoming, this could be dispiriting for family members.
2.4.9 The argument that introducing FGC into the child protection system would increase risks to the child was challenged on a number of grounds. First a number of people pointed out that professionals retained the authority to decide whether the family plan would be accepted or not. A second argument was that family members knew their family well, so were often better placed than social workers to know what the risks were, at what points they might increase and what kinds of support, supervision or care arrangements could reduce them. One service provider also suggested that in the more relaxed atmosphere of a family meeting, parents were more likely to feel confident enough to point out which aspects of a child protection plan would not work for them. It was also possible for the family plan to concentrate on specific issues, for example contact with and support from different relatives, rather than address the whole gamut of concerns which would be covered in the child protection plan.
2.4.10 A number of respondents felt strongly that FGC had a potentially important role in improving the child protection system and that active steps should be taken to increase its availability, especially when a child's name was likely to be placed on the child protection register. Another, while not disagreeing, took the view that if FGC was to operate in situations where risks were still unclear, the co-ordinators should be qualified social workers with extensive child protection experience.
Domestic Violence
2.4.11 Risk management was also central to managing FGC in situations involving domestic violence. The Daybreak Dove project in Basingstoke specialises in FGC with families to whom police have been called because of an incident involving domestic violence. The project's extensive experience in this field usefully highlighted the tensions inherent in 'empowering' families in a situation where at least one family member presents a known risk to another. It also showed how the tensions can be managed and productively worked with. Some of the issues their work raised are relevant to FGC in child protection too.
2.4.12 Staff at the Daybreak Dove project take a very strong stance that domestic violence (i.e. behaviour within the home which is intimidating and threatening to others) is inappropriate and likely to harm children. The aim is to stop or reduce children's exposure to frightening incidents and to open up the issue, so that they are not carrying the family secret by themselves. A restorative element therefore accompanies the child welfare dimension.
2.4.13 One of the key features of the Daybreak Dove project is that it is rooted in inter-agency working. Referrals are discussed at a joint forum for risk assessment which the project manager attends alongside police, health, education, social services and probation. If a referral for FGC is agreed the project manager visits the parents to inform them that their case has been discussed by this group, point out that there are concerns about the effect of the behaviour on their children and to offer FGC as a means of making life better for them. The voluntary nature of their involvement is emphasised, but they are also made aware that should their behaviour continue, there may be consequences outwith their control e.g. involvement of social services. This is not viewed as threatening parents, but as making them aware of the reality of their situation and options. Half of all families approached at this initial stage agree to embark on FGC. Throughout the FGC process, the interagency element was viewed as crucial to supporting all of the family, with the police having a key role in being readily available to support and protect the vulnerable adult and children, if required.
2.4.14 Within this project a considerable amount of attention is devoted to assessing and managing risk. The project manager emphasised that each family is unique, so their particular stress points need to be understood. Communication took place on several levels, so that the co-ordinator would be observing non-verbal interactions between a couple, rather than simply what was said. This indicates that a high level of vigilance can go alongside 'empowering' families to change their lives. There was a particular emphasis on ensuring that the vulnerable adult did not feel compelled to take part in the FGC process, since this would reinforce her victim status. Unless she was given time to make a free choice to participate, FGC would not be an empowering experience. Correspondingly, perpetrators might also find the support to see through a behavioural change programme an 'empowering' experience in that it might free them to behave in ways which benefit themselves and their family.
2.4.15 This project's work has been described in some detail because it is a way of working in which he co-ordinator actively works towards maximising the safety of all concerned. This is a more direct engagement with risk issues than was described in most of the other discussions of FGC work. Daybreak Dove accepts that there can be dangers in opening up issues to the wider family and statutory agencies, but takes the view that openness usually results in a safer and more supportive environment for children, as long as the particular family dynamics are understood and appropriately managed.
Joint issues relating to Child Protection and Domestic Violence
2.4.16 In the following chapter consideration will be given to the skills and qualifications needed to work effectively as a co-ordinator and whether FGC schemes can work best in the statutory or voluntary sector. It might be argued that somewhat different answers to these questions would apply if FGC is to be developed in situations where risks need to be managed. This arguably could apply in any situation, since knowledge about child abuse or domestic violence can never be assumed to be complete, but it has particular relevance when the agency's involvement has been prompted by harm to a child or vulnerable adult and in situations referred by an Intake team, where relatively little about the family is known.
2.4.17 The most common approach to managing risk in the FGC process has been assessment and management within the social work system, with FGC focussing on specific issues such as family support for, or contact with, the child, but not directly responsible for risk assessment. If the role of FGC is to be increased in the child protection sphere, a model more akin to the Daybreak Dove approach may be required. Its key characteristics are active management of risk within a multi-agency framework and a notion of empowering parents which incorporates acknowledgement of their potential for harming others.
Children who are Neglected and/or 'In Need'
2.4.18 This group includes a wide range of children at different stages of social work services involvement and with diverse needs. Examples mentioned in interviews included children with disabilities and/or specific behavioural difficulties whose parents needed additional support (e.g. respite), children whose care had been the subject of prolonged low-medium concern and others whose care was erratic due to their parents' drug dependency.
2.4.19 Different views were expressed about the point at which it was helpful to refer for FGC. On the one hand there was agreement that FGC worked best when there was an obvious reason for intervening e.g. a child was at risk of being accommodated. On the other hand, some people expressed a preference for intervening before a situation became too serious. One service provider suggested that reconciling these two points of view could be difficult in situations where there had been on-going concern about a degree of neglect for some time, but no specific incident to trigger a higher level of social work input, such as an FGC referral. Yet one of the academic respondents took the view that FGC could be particularly helpful as a way of making the wider family aware of concerns and potentially bringing in new support and resources to the child and family.
2.4.20 There were different views about how widely the net should be drawn in terms of offering a FGC service. Some respondents favoured fairly open access across the child care spectrum but others took the view that such an expensive service should be reserved for high priority cases in targeted situations e.g. when there was a risk of accommodation.
Children who are accommodated or at risk of being accommodated
2.4.21 It is perhaps with children who are accommodated or at risk of being accommodated that the use of FGC is most straightforward. Avoiding a child being accommodated is a very clear and pressing reason for involving the wider family. Correspondingly, developing contact plans or support which will enable a child to return home brings family responsibilities clearly into focus. In addition, any reduction in admissions to care involves potential cost savings for the agency.
2.4.22 A number of respondents gave examples of family members agreeing to care for children and sustaining the arrangement over several years. However others cautioned against always expecting children to go and live with relatives, pointing out that a more common result was for realistic contact arrangements to be agreed, so that the child would have a continuing sense of belonging and people to turn to when they reached care leaving age. This kind of outcome was still viewed as invaluable to children. A number of projects, particularly in Scotland and Ireland, were aiming to build FGC into the leaving care process for all young people.
Summary Points
2.4.23
- Within the agencies represented, FGC took place across each sphere of child welfare provision: child protection, neglect, children in need, children being considered for accommodation, those in residential or foster care and those leaving a care placement.;
- Specific difficulties were identified in introducing FGC to the child protection system. Social workers and families were said to be reluctant to attend more meetings. Some social workers feared that their capacity to effectively manage risk would be reduced, but others had found that most families understood the risks well and were able to take steps to reduce them. In addition, social workers and formal decision making forums retained the power not to accept a family plan.;
- A project which specialises in offering FGC to families affected by domestic violence offered a good example of the FGC co-ordinator actively managing risk within a multi-agency framework which includes the police, probation and social services.;
- A pattern was identified whereby FGC moved into working with higher risk cases over time. However it could be difficult to overcome social worker resistance to refer, so introducing procedural mandate promoted this development.;
- FGCs had been arranged for a wide range of children 'in need', including children with disabilities and specific behavioural difficulties. Different views were expressed about the stage at which it was best to involve the extended family, with some respondents favouring early intervention and others suggesting that the wider family was more likely to engage in response to a specific risk e.g. when accommodation was being considered.;
- FGC was used widely for children away from home or being considered for a care placement. In some instances family members were able to offer children a home. In others, FGC resulted in contact arrangements which allowed children to have a continuing sense of belonging to a family, even if they remained in a care placement. Both outcomes were acknowledged as potentially extremely beneficial for children.
« Previous | Contents | Next »