« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Chapter Five: Organisational Arrangements and Staffing
Introduction
2.5.1 Even from the small number of projects and agencies reviewed it is clear that FGC schemes vary widely in terms of their size, whether they are run by a local authority/Trust or independent organisation and how they are staffed. While some employ full-time co-ordinators, others rely on sessional workers. There are also variations in what qualifications are considered necessary for the job. Ideally the review was seeking evidence of which of these organisational and staffing arrangements might be expected to be most effective, but any clear conclusions proved illusive. To some extent each scheme has to be developed to suit local need and circumstances. However the experience of those interviewed helped clarify the advantages and disadvantages of different options.
2.5.2 This chapter begins by summarising respondents' views on the respective merits of in-house schemes and those provided by an independent provider. It then goes on to consider the role of the co-ordinator and views about the skills, attitudes and experience which they require.
In-house or Independent
2.5.3 As noted in earlier chapters, in most parts of the UKFGC schemes are delivered by a mix of statutory and voluntary providers. Scotland is therefore unusual in that most of its provision has been developed by Children 1 st. There was general agreement among those interviewed that each option had its strengths and weaknesses, though different views were expressed about which was preferable.
2.5.4 Independence from the statutory decision making system is clearly a central principle of the FGC process. However what was meant by 'independence' could be interpreted in different ways. A number of voluntary service providers took the view that parents and young people would more readily trust and engage with co-ordinators who were employed by a separate, non-statutory organisation. Some also suggested that this arrangement allowed more scope for the co-ordinator to advocate on behalf of the family, should the local authority fail to provide the resources identified in the plan.
2.5.5 Each of these arguments was challenged. On families' willingness to engage, several respondents said that what mattered was how the co-ordinator talked with the family, not who employed them or where they were located. The key, it was suggested, was that the co-ordinator did not have decision making responsibility, so could engage in more open discussions than was usually the case with social workers. Despite this emphasis that the co-ordinator's attitude and independent role was what mattered, several respondents felt that it was beneficial if the FGC team could be located away from mainstream social work services. However others disagreed with this, emphasising the benefits of close relationships with fieldwork colleagues.
2.5.6 The question of advocacy was not straightforward. Though some respondents argued that independent co-ordinators could act more effectively on families' behalf, others claimed that a FGC manager employed within a local authority would have much more influence with fellow service managers. In addition some people pointed out that the voluntary organisation's independence should not be overstated, since the local authority usually provided the funding for the co-ordinator's post.
2.5.7 The main claim made on behalf on in-house services was that these were more readily owned and accepted by social work colleagues, so better placed to work towards FGC becoming mainstream practice. This point of view was widely expressed by service providers in each part of the UK and one academic. One authority had identified in an independent retrospective review that their voluntary service was viewed by social work staff as belonging to the external service provider, rather than an integral part of the authority's child welfare service. Yet it would be wrong to suggest that all in-house schemes were automatically owned by staff. Most continued to find resistance to routine referral in certain situations and needed an element of procedural mandate to become part of routine practice.
2.5.8 In terms of management accountability, one suggestion was that managers could more easily keep track of the work being undertaken by an in-house scheme and so ensure that it was targeting appropriate cases. On a practical level it was also suggested that an in-house service avoided the need for service agreements, payment of invoices and administrative tasks.
2.5.9 If co-ordinators were employed by local authorities, it was suggested that they could work more flexibly. Because mainstream staff were overworked, a few respondents suggested that FGC would be more useful if co-ordinators were able to take on more of the work of the case in some situations, for example with families referred to Intake teams where assessment was on-going. In this situation the co-ordinator would be the main worker in the case for a specified period, during which the main focus would be on working out what the family could offer and developing a family plan. Another manager pointed out that there were a range of people employed by local authorities, but not holding line management responsibilities, who would be well equipped to take on a co-ordinator role. These would include senior staff in residential child care and in school based social work teams. An additional advantage of the latter option would be that skill in bringing families together to resolve problems would develop across various areas of work. These recommendations were made by Scottish managers.
2.5.10 Inevitably questions of cost come into the equation. Several respondents pointed out that setting up a FGC scheme with a voluntary organisation could involve considerable investment, including preparation time, identifying premises and agreeing the terms of the contract, whereas an in-house service could be set up quickly through identifying one or two appropriate workers and advising mainstream staff on arrangements for accessing the service. One Scottish manager whose authority was considering setting up a FGC scheme said they considered that an in-house scheme would be more affordable and give more flexibility, but that they would explore the possibility of spot-purchasing a service from Children 1 st in situations where relations between the family and social work services were particularly fraught.
2.5.11 It is likely that adherents to a purist version of FGC would question whether what these Scottish managers envisage would in fact constitute Family Group Conferencing. However the review did identify examples of social work staff taking on the co-ordinator role. Evaluation of whether this approach produces comparable levels of family participation and similar outcomes for children would help inform whether this is an appropriate option.
The co-ordinator role
2.5.12 Whatever their views on where the co-ordinator should be located and employed, there was a general consensus on the key elements of the role. The co-ordinator is to engage families in the formation of a plan and to facilitate that process. They are not expected to direct, advise or fix problems, but to create a situation in which family members are able to take on and complete the task.
2.5.13 No-one suggested that this is an easy role. Co-ordinators need to be aware of the dynamics between family members and with social work staff, yet be strong enough to resist being caught up in them. They need be assertive and calm enough to manage strong emotions in a group meeting, yet wise enough to avoid taking over control. Respondents typically said that co-ordinators need good negotiating skills, strong empathy with people and, above all, to be sympathetic to the empowering/ partnership ethos which underpins family group conferencing. They also need to be reliable and well-organised and to be confident enough to advise and support referring social workers and other professionals contributing to the conference.
2.5.14 While these expectations of co-ordinators were agreed, quite different views were expressed about a) the level of knowledge co-ordinators needed of the social work system and b) whether co-ordinators should be qualified social workers.
2.5.15 The predominant view was that, though co-ordinators required a reasonable understanding of the child welfare system, they did not need to have worked within it or know it from the inside. Correspondingly, by far the majority of respondents, most of whom had managed co-ordinators from a range of professional backgrounds, did not believe that co-ordinators needed social work training. Indeed several thought that people from a non-social work background, for example community work or education, made better co-ordinators because they were less inclined to want to 'fix' things and more readily took on a facilitating role.
2.5.16 A few respondents took the view that no professional training or background was necessary at all, citing the Netherlands where large numbers of people from very varied backgrounds do the job on a sessional basis. One small voluntary organisation in Wales had run a training course for would-be co-ordinators ranging from social work academics to people who had experienced FGC as a family member. The course was considered to have been successful, but because of relatively low referral rates, not all of those trained had gone on to co-ordinate conferences.
2.5.17 About five respondents believed that co-ordinators should be qualified social workers, with several years experience in child welfare work. This view was held particularly strongly by two who managed a local authority scheme. Both took the view that the co-ordinator needed a sound appreciation of legal and professional constraints, so that they could advice families on this throughout the preparation process, not just at the conference when the social worker would be on hand. In both of these authorities co-ordinators would get involved with families referred on Intake, prior to a full social work assessment having been carried out. It might be the case that social work qualification and experience are needed to work in this part of the system, thus potentially extending the range of cases in which FGC can be applied.
2.5.18 Those who argued that a social work qualification was necessary, or at least helpful, were keen on implementing partnership principles across work with children and families. Their work was based on the standard FGC model, but they expected to implement this flexibly, so, for example, might sometimes arrange meetings with a few family members rather than the whole group or decide that private family time was not appropriate. Some FGC adherents would argue that such an approach will result in FGC principles being diluted, while others would see it as a realistic way of influencing mainstream practice.
Summary Points
2.5.19
- Across most parts of the UKFGC services are provided through a mix of voluntary and statutory agencies. Advantages and disadvantages were identified for both options. Voluntary agency services were viewed as potentially more independent, but in-house services were considered less costly and more likely to be 'owned' as part of the agency's mainstream work.;
- Key requirements for co-ordinators were identified as: good negotiating skills, capacity to be assertive, strong empathy, but able to resist being caught up in dynamics between family members and social work staff. Sympathy with the empowering/ partnership ethos of FGC was viewed as essential.;
- Most respondents believed that co-ordinators did not require a social work qualification. Indeed a number said that social workers did not make the best co-ordinators because they tended to be directive, rather than facilitative. However a few managers of local authority schemes thought social work experience was either desirable or essential.;
- In two authorities social work qualified co-ordinators were offering FGC to families referred on Intake, i.e. prior to a full assessment being made. The standard model was used flexibly in these situations, with a primary emphasis on implementing partnership principles.
« Previous | Contents | Next »