« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Part Three: Conclusion
3.1.1 By carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and a literature search, this review has tried to locate current UK developments in FGC in a historical and international context, and insights from practice wisdom within what has been learned from research. In many respects corresponding views emerged from both sources. In interviews, FGC was said to be consistent with the partnership ethos of legislation and policy, yet counter to the current practice culture. It was hailed as an effective way of making practical, low-key arrangements which sustained children's links with their families, yet typically meets considerable resistance from social work staff and does not fit easily into mainstream systems. From the literature, Doolan (1999) argues that the successful implementation of FGC requires a shift in the child protection discourse and move towards more service user involvement in the child welfare system. Correspondingly Lupton and Nixon (1999) state that the main challenge for UK social work teams has been in making links between existing practices and meetings. They argue that the implementation and mainstreaming of FGC has proven difficult because of the contradictions between FGC and traditional approaches, alongside the tendency of many social workers to view FGC as simply 'another technique', rather than a means of reframing an agency's actions.
3.1.2 The case for reframing services for children and families is made in two key policy initiative which are driving change in children's services: Getting it Right for Every Child and Changing Lives. While the first focuses primarily on putting children's needs first and achieving more effective collaboration across agencies, the second is also concerned with developing partnership with service users and their families and moving from reliance on professional services towards increasing capacity among service users' families and communities. These principles are to apply in all work with children and young people, including those who offend, are affected by domestic violence, have difficulties in school and are in need of care and protection. This review is therefore relevant to professionals working in a wide range if agencies including education, police and health. It would be facile to argue that Family Group Conferencing is the key to making key changes in work with children and families, but there is clear evidence from this review that it has a part to play.
3.1.3 One of the aims of this study was to review the evidence for FGC effectiveness. Inevitably this raises questions about how 'effectiveness' is to be judged. Is it by its capacity to engage a wider range of family members in the process, to produce and/or implement a plan or to achieve better outcomes for children than could be achieved through standard decision making and practice? At present it is reasonably clear that FGC is effective in engaging with family members and preparing plans, but there is less research based evidence of plan implementation or good outcomes. Whilst an increasing number of agencies and academics are now looking more closely at how children fare following a family meeting, it is widely acknowledged that the research community is some way from being able to reliably assess whether their outcomes are better or worse than for those who have a standard service. Acknowledged difficulties include ensuring that samples are matched on key criteria, accounting for the influence of other variables (such as type of placement) and the cost and practical challenges of tracking large enough samples of children over a long enough period.
3.1.4 Given the policy aim of increasing partnership working and enhancing the community's capacity for informal care, it may be that the sound evidence that FGC is effective in engaging with families and making plans for children should be taken as sufficient on which to proceed, as long as arrangements for monitoring the effects on children are built into the process. However, before proceeding, some more searching questions may need to be addressed about the nature of FGC itself and whether current knowledge can offer guidance on how it might best be introduced in work with different groups of children with different needs.
3.1.5 One key message from the literature is that the fit between FGC and current systems is crucial to the approach becoming established as part of mainstream practice. Several of those interviewed confirmed this from their own experience. The predominant view among FGC adherents is that convening an FGC should be mandatory in certain situations. Children 1 st takes the view that national guidance should at least require that FGC is offered when decisions are being made which will seriously impact on a child's life, for example to accommodate or place for adoption. According to this perspective, key elements of the model, such as private family time, are necessary to empower families and challenge the powerful dynamics which sustain professional dominance. An alternative view is that changes in professionals' attitudes towards families' will be brought about more readily through applying the model more flexibly across services for children. Adherents to this point of view would argue that what matters is that the principles, rather than the model, becomes embedded in practice.
3.1.6 This review has produced some evidence to support both points of view. There are indications from New Zealand that diluting key elements of the standard model reduces its effectiveness. However the review also heard of well-established UK schemes which had had little effect on mainstream practice, while another which used social workers as co-ordinators was reported to be well accepted among professional staff. It is also worth noting that when FGC has been applied in a other contexts, e.g. in schools and residential homes, the standard model has been adapted, without apparent loss of effectiveness.
3.1.7 On the basis of current evidence it seems reasonable to conclude that if FGC is to be relevant across children's services a flexible rather than 'one size fits all' approach to FGC will be needed. There may be scope for developing the staged approach, which works well in educational and residential settings, in work with families, so that a full conference would only be convened when less resource intensive engagement had proved ineffective. A flexible approach might also mean that qualified social workers would take on the co-ordinator role in situations where lack of clarity about risk would otherwise exclude them from the FGC process. Several respondents claimed that what mattered was not the co-ordinator's employing authority, but his/her attitude to family members and capacity to work respectfully. However, while some FGC might best be carried out by in-house staff, other families would need the reassurance of working with an independent agency, for example where relationships with statutory staff are very contentious. The key may be to plan FGC services on the basis of what is required for specific client groups, with a view to embedding practice across children and families teams and within systems for inter-agency assessment and care planning.
3.1.8 The conclusion of this review is that further development of FGC in Scotland would be justified in light of its evidenced capacity to engage extended families in planning for their children. It has also concluded that more needs to be known about:
a) the extent to which plans are implemented and benefit children;
b) how FGC can best fit within Scottish decision-making systems and structures;
c) the unique benefits which derive from using the standard model, as opposed to development more varied and flexible approaches to working in partnership with parents.
3.1.9 One way forward would be to fund a small number of well-planned developments in FGC, with in-built evaluation. Relevant topics would include organisational and staffing arrangements, the place of FGC within other decision making structures, how plans are implemented and outcomes for children.
3.1.10 Scotland is well placed to carry out this kind of initiative. Children 1 st has extensive experience in the field, having taken the lead in introducing the model and refined its use across several local authorities. Edinburgh has opted for an in-house service and operates somewhat differently. All local authorities are seeking ways of developing the capacities of families and communities, while also safeguarding children and promoting their welfare, without removing them from their home communities.
« Previous | Contents | Next »