The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter Two : Origins and Growth of the FGDM model

The origins of FGDM

1.2.1 The FGDM approach was first implemented in New Zealand in 1989 during what is retrospectively seen as a period of intense social and economic change. As part of this, the extensive social welfare system, imported almost directly to the colonies from the United Kingdom, was called into question as a result of monetary difficulties, the emergence of the issue of children's rights and a wider shift in perceptions regarding the responsibilities of the state and community versus the individual.

1.2.2 Key to these changes in social work practice were concerns raised by New Zealand's indigenous communities. They argued that child welfare professionals usurped the traditional roles of the family/whanau (Morris & Maxwell: 1998). It was also argued that their practices demonstrated a lack of awareness of Maori cultural practices in their philosophical emphasis on the centrality of the child and their separateness from the family, an ignorance of kinship support networks and a failure to provide for cultural needs when children were placed in institutions or non-Maori foster homes (Pakura: 2004). Along with the poor outcomes for children associated with child welfare interventions (Doolan: 2004), these concerns were key drivers in the re-drafting of the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989 (Connolly: 2004). Emphasising the importance of family and cultural identity in the care of children, the Act proclaimed that child welfare is a private rather than a state concern. As a means of translating these ideals into practice, this legislation introduced FGDM as the central decision-making process in youth justice and statutory civil actions relating to the care or protection of children (Pakura: 2004).

Operational themes and the structure of FCGs

1.2.3. The original FGDM model has been adapted many times so that it can be applied within different jurisdictions and used in relation to a variety of issues. Also, it is utilised at different points in the relevant child welfare/juvenile justice systems. In spite of these variations, Chandler and Giovannucci (2004) argue that most FGDM schemes adhere to the following operational themes:

• Widening the circle - those with useful information to share, who love and care about the child involved or about the outcome are invited into the decision-making process.
• Putting the problem rather than the person at the centre of the circle - FGCs deal with the aftermath of harmful behaviour and are non-adversarial, facilitated processes which focus on healing and preventing harm rather than on placing blame.
• Taking/sharing responsibility for solutions - Rather than social care professionals being responsible for solutions, FGCs build partnerships among families, communities and agencies. Focusing on family strengths rather than deficits, all contribute knowledge, solutions and resources to ensure child safety and well-being.
• Culturally competent practice - FGCs draw on and are shaped by the cultural patterns and resources of the family and community involved as understood by them.
• Family leadership and empowerment - FGCs shift traditional power relations so that families actively participate in making decisions. Information is shared and families take responsibility for their members and the safety and well-being of their children, while the state retains responsibility for child protection.
• Community partnerships - FGCs aim to build new relationships and partnerships with traditional and non- traditional partners in the hope that community-based resources can be found and secured to assist the family in discovering home-grown solutions.
• Private time - FGCs utilise time set aside during a conference in which the family, without professionals, dialogue and negotiate plans for the safety of the child.

1.2.4 Although the structure of proceedings around the convening of an FGC varies according to the specific model applied within jurisdictions, they generally incorporate four distinct stages (adapted from Lawrence & Wiffin (2002) and Ratonga Services (2006) ⁷):

1. Referral

2. Preparation

3. Meeting

a) Information giving - Agency staff provide family with information on child or young person, resources and support available - chaired by co-ordinator. If in a youth justice context, the young person may admit or deny the charge.

b) Discussion:

4. Reviewing the plan

1.2.5 A number of steps may be taken to ensure that the plan is being adhered to. Monitoring plans are generally adapted to family circumstances and may be agreed between the family and social worker at the conclusion of the conference (however, at many FGCs, no such arrangements are decided upon). As discussed above, another FGC may be convened to discuss progress, although this tends to be used only in instances where plans have failed, a lack of progress has been noted or when other problems subsequently arise. More commonly, a formal review between the family and social worker may be organised in order to check progress. Alternatively, more informal means of monitoring progress may be agreed; informal meetings may be convened, social workers may monitor progress informally through their continuing contact with the family or family members themselves may agree to monitor the outcomes of the plan and report any concerns to social workers.

1.2.6 Adherence to plans can depend upon the stringency of the agreed monitoring requirements (which may themselves make failure more or less likely) or the permitted degree of deviation from the plan (Do plans have to be followed exactly? Does reversion to a Plan B constitute success or failure? In spite of failures executing specific plan components does adherence to the 'spirit' of the plan constitute success?). Social workers' perceptions of risk, confidence in the plan or ability of family to execute the plan are likely to be factors influencing monitoring arrangements, as are the resources available within the family to monitor the plan and the family's ability to influence FGDM outcomes.

The growth in the use of FGDM

1.2.7 Worldwide growth in the use of FGDM as a child welfare intervention has been driven by a number of factors. The approach is innovative and, despite originating from a unique set of circumstances, has the potential to be applied in other jurisdictions and settings. Doolan (1999) argues that interest has been generated as a result of the influence minority indigenous people had on legislation and practice - comparable minorities in Australia, Canada and the US may also have sought to emulate these achievements in promoting similar culturally-sensitive reforms.

1.2.8 The difficult climate of social work and court-mandated child welfare and protection services (often characterised as adversarial and coercive in nature) as well as the considerable body of evidence relating to poor outcomes for children who are the subject of child welfare interventions (particularly those involving out-of-home placements: Borland et al: 1998, Stein et al: 2000) are factors which have also underlined the need for a new approach within this field. Further support for a shift in emphasis is also provided by Gray (1989), who argues that collaborations between agencies and families may be more effective than traditional adversarial decision-making procedures or unilateral action by a single agency in resolving situations involving large, indivisible problems.

1.2.9 Although these factors may appeal to specific interest groups, the simple ideas underlying FGDM have some wider import in the way they resound with the emphasis society somewhat idealistically places on traditional notions of family and community as a hub of collective decision-making and action. The institution of mechanisms to devolve power and responsibility to families and communities is also consistent with other movements and philosophies which have influenced social care reforms over the past ten to fifteen years. Neo-liberal philosophies emphasising the withdrawal of the state from the public sector and the devolution of responsibility for, and ownership of, social issues to individuals, families and communities have emerged. Families and communities have become viewed as a potential resource which the state may 'partner' in order to utilise them. The emphasis on social inclusion and the promotion of access to services has also resulted in a need to recognise and respond to the needs of specific communities. Likewise, the emergence of a consumer-led social welfare model emphasising participation and the rights of individuals and communities has also favoured an expansion in the involvement of families and communities in social welfare measures. Specifically, the emergence of a discourse on children's rights and the growing emphasis on the needs and rights of victims of crime has influenced the FGDM movement. Furthermore, though not specifically informed by such ideas, FGDM developments in youth justice often encapsulate some of the principles of 'restorative justice' recently implemented within mainstream criminal justice practices.

Implementation and use of FGDM

1.2.10 The FGDM approach is applicable in a wide range of situations where there is a perceived need to increase communication and family participation as part of an effort to assist in child welfare and protection cases.

1.2.11 Since the introduction of Family Group Conferences ( FGCs) in New Zealand, legislative mandates prescribing their use have been introduced in most parts of Australia, in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland. Doolan (1999) argues that obtaining a legislative mandate is a crucial step in 'mainstreaming' FGDM. He argues that in the absence of this, the methodology vacuum may be filled by bureaucrats with the result that implementation may be patchy, structures may be influenced by professionalism and hence, differ from the intended aims of the approach.

1.2.12 In spite of a lack of legal mandate, FGDM has been introduced via best practice recommendations in the remainder of Australia, Israel, the Netherlands, all the countries within Scandinavia, South Africa, Thailand, the UK and the USA. Research and evaluations originating from some of these countries have made the existence of these schemes relatively well known. Nixon et al's (2005) international survey of FGC-related developments also received responses from practitioners in 17 countries, including (in addition to those already mentioned above) Belgium, Brazil, Puerto Rico and Saudi Arabia.

1.2.13 In terms of growth in the use of FGDM, Nixon et al's survey suggests a dramatic increase in the establishment of new programs between 1998 and 2002, followed by an apparent tailing off in their introduction in 2003 (this latter trend could not be verified as data were not yet available for 2004). Despite this growth in the number of FGDM schemes, Nixon et al suggest that their use remains fairly small scale; when questioned about overall and annual numbers of FGCs held, most indicated 'between 1 and 10'. They report that most FGDM projects focused on child welfare/protection (60%) and youth justice (58%), followed by family violence and school conferencing (both 32%) and child mental health (29%).

New Zealand

1.2.14 FGCs are principally used within the youth justice field in New Zealand. They are used for medium to serious cases both as a pre-charge mechanism (determining whether prosecution can be avoided - 40% of all FGCs) and as a post-charge mechanism to deal with cases admitted or proven in court (Morris & Maxwell: 1998). Wellington held 554 FGCs to address youth offending in 1996, while in 1998 there were 215, a reduction which Doolan (1999) argues reflects the successes of the FGDM approach. Overall, 6,700 FGCs were convened to consider matters of youth offending in 1998, 3,700 of these were directed by the Youth Court and 3,000 were referrals from the police (Doolan: 1999).

1.2.15 The use of FGDM has also been extended to child welfare and protection cases where young people are believed to be 'at risk' because they are experiencing physical or sexual abuse, violence or conflict between caregivers, emotional or physical neglect, behaviour beyond their, or their caregivers, control, or a lack of stable or adequate care ⁸. In 1998, 24,000 notifications of abuse and neglect were received by the relevant authorities. Of these 18,000 required some follow-up work and 1,300 were referred for Care and Protection FGCs while a further 630 resulted in court action followed by a FGC.

1.2.16 Some of the earliest FGDM evaluations were carried out in New Zealand although Marsh & Crow (1998) comment that major opportunities were missed due to the inadequacies of the computerised monitoring system used there. Furthermore, Robertson (1996) states that little monitoring is undertaken in New Zealand, while Connolly & Mackenzie (1999) argue that the potential for long-term outcome evaluations has been hampered by a lack of funding and an unwillingness to allocate these resources in comprehensively evaluating FGCs. Marsh & Crow provide a digest of some of the research available from New Zealand ⁹. Unfortunately, most of these were not available at the time of writing, although their findings were discussed by Marsh & Crow, whose own assertions on the basis of these evaluations are included where appropriate.

Australia

1.2.17 In terms of specific developments, Lupton & Nixon (1999) state that, in legislatively mandated contexts, Southern Australia established family care meetings as part of the statutory care and protection process in 1993 (Wuntersitz & Hetzel: 1996) and used conferencing in youth justice cases from 1994 (Hayes & Daly: 2003). New South Wales established a privately-funded pilot in 1996 (Cashmore & Kiely: 2000), while Queensland also introduced legislation mandating FGCs in the mid-1990's (Doolan: 1999). Ban (2000) also adds that Western Australia and Tasmania made statutory provision for FGDM in the youth justice and child welfare fields in the 1990's. Indeed, by 2000, all but two jurisdictions (Victoria and the Australian Commonwealth Territory) had enacted legislation implementing FGDM (Hayes & Daly :2003).

1.2.18 In relation to non-statutory schemes, Lupton & Nixon (1999) state that the approach was first established in Australia in 1992 by a religious welfare agency in Victoria (operating initially in a child welfare context, the scheme was extended in 1994 to cover the welfare of children with mothers in prison (Ban: 1996, Campbell: 1997)). While implemented mainly in child protection contexts, non-statutory FGDM schemes are also used as a diversionary intervention for minor offending in Wagga Wagga and Canberra (Morris & Maxwell: 1998). In this context, FGCs are based explicitly upon a 'Reintegrative Shaming' model borrowing heavily from traditional aboriginal practices (Braithwaite: 1989). Marsh & Crow (1998) summarise other Australia research including studies by Swain (1993) and Boffa (1995).

Thailand

1.2.19 Roujanavong (2005) describes the implementation of Family and Community Group Conferencing ( FCGC) in Thailand. Since 2003, this approach has been used for dealing with juvenile justice cases that have a potential punishment of lower than five years imprisonment. The model is seen to fit well within Thai society because it closely mirrors traditional dispute settlement procedures. Participants are more numerous than in many other schemes; a psychologist, multiple representatives of the community and the director of the protection centre are in attendance along with the actors usually present. The initial take-up of FCGC was reported to be low due to unfamiliarity with the relevant procedures, but reportedly it has now been implemented uniformly and to a high standard. Expansion of the scheme to juvenile justice cases with a potential punishment of more than five years imprisonment has been mooted along with use of conferencing as a preventative measure, tackling issues before the child comes into contact with the criminal justice system. Further expansion beyond child welfare issues, to resolve disputes in the school and villages is also planned.

South Africa

1.2.20 In South Africa, FGDM was piloted initially in youth justice and then extended to child welfare settings. Lupton & Nixon (1999) report that conferences have been used in areas where community spirit and problem-solving capacities have been eroded and aim to build on community and family structures such as 'street committees' that emerged in the townships during apartheid.

Israel

1.2.21 Three FGDM pilot programmes operate in Israel in the areas of youth justice, child protection and education. This project was a joint venture between various government offices and the fellowship ASHALIM (Association for Planning and Development of Services for Children and Youth at Risk & Their Families). In relation to youth justice, the pilot began in 2000. Working from three locations, more than 80 cases have been referred to this program so far and around 30 processes have been completed. The child protection pilot began also began in 2000 in 18 locations across Israel, while the education pilot operates in three locations (information obtained online ¹⁰).

USA

1.2.22 Brown (2003) states that projects (probably based on Oregon's Family Unity model discussed below) started developing across the United States as early as 1989. Shortly after its introduction the FGDM approach received support from the American Humane Association, which promoted its use extensively from the early 1990's. However, Immarigeon (1996) states that efforts to further develop the use of the approach largely ceased in the mid 90's in both the US and Canada due to a lack of adequate information, alternative child welfare priorities and a failure to attract sufficient funding and support. Most FGDM schemes in the USA were established following the passage through Congress of the Adoption and Safe Families Act ( ASFA) in 1997. Chandler & Giovannucci (2004) argue that ASFA mandates that state child welfare agencies revisit practices and change them so that they are consistent with protecting children and preserving family integrity. A further driver in the development of FGDM was the definition by the federal government of outcome measures (e.g. length of time in foster care, number of placements, number of kinship adoptions, reabuse etc.) that states must record and make public.

1.2.23 Following these legislative changes, FGDM emerged as one of the means of realising the aims of ASFA. Furthermore, the National Council of Justice and Family Court Judges ( NCJFCJ) has adopted the approach as a best practice technique and supported its use in instances when agency involvement with a child and family is in danger of leading to court involvement. Chandler & Giovannucci (2004) report that the model is now widely used in practice among communities in California, North Carolina, Michigan, Minnesota, Florida, Washington, Arizona, Colorado and New Jersey. FGCs are also used state-wide in Hawaii, presumably because it mirrors traditional dispute resolution procedures. Chandler & Giovannucci also provide a comprehensive overview of developments in the US¹¹.

1.2.24 The US is the site of the greatest proliferation of alternative names for FGDM/ FGC and, more importantly, variations in procedure. Nixon et al (2005) argues that this phenomenon (principally occurring among non-government sponsored programmes) often reflects a practice change or embellishment at the level of facilitation, the avoidance of a stereotype or avoidance of an affiliation with competing programmes. However, these changes can impact directly on the operation of FGDM, involving, as they often do, variations in the extent to which some of the basic 'tried and trusted' elements of the approach are adhered to. Although these variations will be discussed below, it is also important to recognise the existence of a competing model originating from the US.

1.2.25 Around the same time as FGDM was developed in New Zealand, the state of Oregon developed a similar process using a 'Family Unity Meeting' ( FUM). The Family Unity Model (Graber& Nice: 2000) differs from FGDM in that the facilitator remains present throughout the meeting, there is no 'private family time' and parents have the power to veto the involvement of specific family members. The model is used with child welfare cases including those involving drug and/or alcohol dependent parents and juvenile justice cases (Lupton & Nixon: 1999). Marsh & Crow (1998) argue that the use of FUMs is now part of mainstream policy, having risen sharply from 1000 in 1995 to 2000 in 1996. In spite of their initial differences, FUMs have been influenced by FGCs and now make increasing use of private family time. Further blurring the distinction between FUM and FGDM is the wholesale adoption of FGC procedures by some US counties and states (including San Diego) under the FUM name (Quinnett: 2002).

Canada

1.2.26 FGDM has been applied in the fields of both restorative justice and child welfare/protection in Canada. Lee (1997) reports that The Federal Department of Justice, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Correction Services Canada have adopted the approach at a federal level, as have social services at a provincial level. Immarigeon (1996) also states that in Winnipeg (Manitoba) conferencing has been used to deal with aboriginal youths involved with the youth justice system (evaluated by Longclaws et al (1996)).

1.2.27 Examples of Canadian schemes include the Newfoundland FGDM Project which was implemented in 1994 in three different Newfoundland communities (aboriginal, rural and urban). This project focused largely on situations involving family violence and drew specifically on principles of reintegrative shaming, family preservation and community policing (Lupton & Nixon: 1999). The project was extensively evaluated by Burford and Pennell (1995, Pennell & Burford: 2000) and was the source of one of the few long-term outcome studies available. Mandell et al (2001) also evaluated a child welfare project based in Etobicoke (Toronto area). Launched in 1998, this charity-funded project resulted in positive procedural findings (e.g. family satisfaction), but experienced a low volume of referrals. Immarigeon (1996) also discusses British Columbia's FGDM programme, which began in 1994 following extensive consultation with local indigenous populations regarding the most culturally appropriate child welfare reforms.

Scandinavia

1.2.28 FGDM was implemented within a child welfare environment in eight counties in Denmark for a two-year trial period from 2000 to 2001. Discussing the project, Rasmussen (2003) reports that it was implemented differently across participating areas and that time and resources proved to be significant obstacles, with the lengthy preparation time involved and high staff turnover sidelining the initiative. Despite the pilot reportedly re-energising the administering department, social workers reported experiencing initial uncertainty regarding FGC administration and expressed concern about losing control of their work and the consequences of FGDM.

1.2.29- Lupton & Nixon (1999) report on the development of FGDM in Sweden between 1995 and 1997. Following extensive lobbying by an association of grandmothers who felt overlooked as a child welfare resource, the practice was adopted and promoted as best practice by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities using existing legislative and procedural frameworks. Ten local authorities were selected as pilot areas and staff were trained by social workers and researchers from the UK. The model was applied in the area of child welfare and protection although projects varied in their targeting of single parent, drug/alcohol users etc. The Swedish project was distinctive in that it was co-ordinated and researched nationally. Sundell et al (2001) reported largely positive procedural findings from an evaluation of the scheme, although it is reported to have experienced problems with low numbers of families being referred for/accepting referrals. Sundell & Vinnerljung (2004) also provided long-term outcome data in their three-year follow up study. Unlike other outcome studies, this reports negative findings in relation to the impact of conferencing on re-referral rates, case closure rates and out-of home placements compared to children subject to traditional child welfare procedures.

United Kingdom and Ireland (except Scotland)

1.2.30 FGDM has been used in the UK since the early 1990's as a child welfare and protection intervention. Sundell et al (2001) discuss the introduction of FGDM in the UK, stating that the individual enthusiasm of professionals (such as Ryburn) and the support for the model from the Family Rights Group ( FRG) helped stimulate interest in the practice. In particular, FRG conferences and training sessions helped to disseminate information to interested professionals and foster a 'bottom-up' movement to implement the approach.

1.2.31 The UK Children Act 1989, like New Zealand's legislation, emphasised the participation of families in child welfare planning and, in tandem with the grassroots movement discussed above, was essentially the catalyst for FGDM in the UK. Brown (2003) argues that despite the facilitating role of this legislation, the UK Government adopted a laissez-faire approach in relation to the development of FGDM. 'Working Together' (DoH: 1999) stated that FGCs might be appropriate in a number of child welfare and protection contexts but would not replace child protection conferences, thereby specifically limiting their application and failing to endorse their use. In a review of the Children Act 2004, Morris (2005) discusses the recent policy shift from 'need' to 'risk' as a determinant of service provision. She raises concerns that the 2004 Act (requiring authorities to 'have regard to' the importance of parents and other person caring for children in improving their well-being) offers a diluted and muddled interpretation of participation, the reality of which could be processes of extended consultation with service users without real involvement.

1.2.32 Holland et al (2005) state that FGDM is a 'small scale' child welfare intervention in the UK. Brown (2003) largely supports this, stating that only around half of councils with social services responsibilities (55%) had or were interested in establishing a FGDM scheme (38% had a project (24% were established, as opposed to pilot schemes), while 17% were considering setting one up). Brown identifies the main period of growth in UKFGC projects as occurring between 1991 and 2000, while the period from 1999 to 2001 is identified as one of consolidation, with a doubling in the number of established schemes. Schemes are managed in a variety of ways with a number of charities being involved in training and consultancy. Barnardo's ¹² (one of the national agencies providing FGDM co-ordination services, training etc.) report that, to date, they have been used in more than 60 local authorities in England and Wales. NCH and FRG are also heavily involved in aspects of FGDM provision, with FRG also running national and regional practitioner and conference networks. Overall, the picture from the emerging from the research is not one of a lack of schemes but rather that schemes are not adequately resourced and, due in part to the highly proceduralised processes of dealing with children at risk, do not receive enough referrals for them to be considered a mainstream practice.

1.2.33 Brown's (2003) survey found that 93% of councils used FGDM in child welfare and support settings (protection, accommodation etc.) while the remaining 7% were in youth justice ¹³ and education (in an effort to resolve problems experienced by children in relation to non-attendance, bullying and behaviour problems Hampshire County Council initiated such a project in 1999). The use of FGDM has also now been extended to domestic violence, although in fields other than child welfare it remains a very marginal practice.

1.2.34 Marsh & Crow (1998) evaluate the development of the first UKFGDM projects which emerged in 1994 following training courses run by FRG. Six areas were identified to run schemes as part of a co-ordinated pilot. These areas used a variety of management and resourcing procedures to deliver the projects in different contexts (Gwynedd is a Welsh speaking area, work in Leamington Spa focused on the Asian community, while in St. Basil's (Birmingham) young homeless people were targeted). Other areas piloted FGDM in a range of settings; Haringey testing the model on child protection cases from a largely ethnic minority population, Wiltshire using the model in education, health and social services. Studies of the individual pilot sites were linked together in the ' Family Partners' and 'Pulling Together' research programmes which focused on the implementation and use of FGCs in child protection. Rosen (1994) conducted a small study of the Wandsworth project and Barker & Barker (1995) examined the Gwynedd scheme, interviewing family members, co-ordinators and other professionals (Lupton et al (1995) also used a similar approach in their evaluation). Marsh & Crow's study (1998) draws much of this research together, examining qualitative and quantitative material from all 80 pilot FGCs (involving 99 children from 69 families) and also includes an analysis of some follow-up data.

1.2.35 Eire and Northern Ireland share some characteristics with New Zealand. Similarities include the existence of strong and diverse community networks and the historical presence of traditional decision-making fora involving the wider family network (enacted as part of the Brehon Laws, which existed in some rural areas until the 18 ^th Century). While Doolan (1999) correctly argues that a legislative mandate for FGDM exists in Northern Ireland (in the field of youth justice), Gribben (2005) asserts that the approach has mainly been implemented there on a 'best practice' basis. She argues that (in relation to child welfare) implementation is based on the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, the Children's ( NI) Order 1995 (equivalent to contemporaneous legislation in Scotland) which encourages parental and familial responsibility for children, and the Dept. of Health's 'Co-operating to Safeguard Children' (2003), which specifically refers to FGDM as a best practice measure ¹⁴.

1.2.36 The Family Group Conferencing Service in Northern Ireland was initially established in 2000 as a two-year pilot funded by Barnardo's Northern Ireland along with two statutory agencies ¹⁵. Attracting Government funding after the pilot period, the scheme has since incorporated a School Restorative Conferencing ( SRC) element ¹⁶. Gribben's (2005) audit of the Barnardo's characterises its management structure as being based on strong procedures and parameters of accountability (similar to the Essex model) and using co-ordinators from professional backgrounds. She contrasts this with schemes run by other bodies (e.g. Netcare) which utilise simpler, verbal processes and employ lay co-ordinators. Overall, FGCs are available in eight of the eleven Social Services Trusts across Northern Ireland.

1.2.37 It is in the area of restorative justice where conferencing is legislatively mandated in Northern Ireland. Following the findings of the Criminal Justice Review (Dignan & Lowey: 2000), the Justice ( NI) Act 2002 and the Justice ( NI) Bill 2004 recommended a move towards a restorative model of youth justice based on the Northern Ireland Youth Conferencing Service. Additionally, the Youth Conference Rules (Northern Ireland) 2003 establish the procedures to be followed when convening and facilitating a conference (O'Mahoney & Campbell: 2004) ¹⁷. The Youth Conferencing Service was introduced as a pilot scheme in 2003 and was initially available for all 10 to 16 year olds (and some 17 year olds) living in Belfast. In mid-2004 it was expanded to cover more rural areas. Following Campbell et al's (2005) largely positive independent evaluation of the youth conference process, the service was rolled out further in June 2005 and formally extended to 17 year olds in September 2005.

1.2.38 In the Republic of Ireland, FGCs were introduced into the youth justice system by the Children Bill (1999). Unlike in the UK, their use has been mainstreamed in child welfare settings by establishing a legislative mandate for their use as part of the Child Care Act (2002). Few details were available on the use of FGDM in the Irish Republic. Although a FGC pilot evaluation report by O'Brien (2002) is known due to its use as a comparator by Hamilton (2005), it could not be obtained at the time of writing.

Scotland

1.2.39 As in England and Wales, no legislative mandate for the use of FGDM exists in Scotland. The model was first implemented here on a 'best practice' basis in 1998/9, some years after the passage of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (Murray et al: 2001, Gill et al: 2003). Like the Children Act 1989 enacted south of the border some years before, this legislation facilitated conferencing as a means of promoting collaborative working and partnership with families in an effort to tackle child welfare issues. Unlike in the rest of the UK or in New Zealand, a combined child welfare and juvenile justice system (Children's Hearings) was already in place prior to the establishment of FGCs. In comparing elements of the Scottish child welfare system Murray et al (2001) point out the main differences between FGDM on the one hand and children's hearings and social work department meetings (e.g. child protection case conferences) as being:

• the locus of decision-making (rests with the family instead of with a lay panel or professionals);
• the number of professionals present (lower at FGCs than at other meetings);
• the emphasis on bringing the family together at FGCs; and,
• children's rights (no legal rights are afforded to children at FGCs, while at the other meetings (particularly children's hearings) there are clear legal guidelines relating to children and young people)

1.2.40 FGDM currently occupies a distinct position within the range of child welfare processes available in Scotland. While promoting partnership with and aiming to empower families are laudable aims, in the context of available alternatives there may be concerns about the possible disempowerment of young people.

1.2.41 The use of FGDM was pioneered in Scotland by Children 1 ^st (a voluntary sector agency), which established the first projects in Moray and Dundee in 1988/9 and now manages schemes in nine areas (including East Lothian, Midlothian and South Ayrshire) with more being planned (Hamilton: 2005). Reportedly, significant variation exists in the staffing and management of these projects and their position relative to existing social care services. Children 1 ^st also offer FGDM-related training and consultancy services in Scotland.

1.2.42 FGDM is used for all types of interventions in Scotland, including 'high tariff' cases involving children at risk. Hamilton (2005) states that around a quarter of referrals (both 23%) to Scottish FGDM schemes were for cases involving accommodation or contact/residence issues, while less than one in ten (7%) was held in order to resolve child protection issues. Three quarters of referrals to Children 1 ^stFGDM schemes originate from social workers, with eight per cent coming from the education sector.

1.2.43 Three evaluations of FGDM in Scotland have so far been carried out. Murray et al (2001) evaluated Moray and Dundee schemes between 1999 and 2000, observing 15 FGCs and interviewing 47 family members and professionals. Gill et al (2003), the authors of which are three Children 1 ^st conference co-ordinators, examined the use of FGDM in permanent child care planning. Children 1 ^st's own 'audit and evaluation' of Scottish FGCs (Hamilton: 2005) provides descriptive data on all their conferences convened between 1999 and 2005 (372) alongside service user and professional views of the schemes. Though the latter study reported numerous problems associated with poor data collection practices, it remains the most comprehensive Scottish study to date.

Summary

1.2.44 The FGDM approach first implemented in New Zealand in 1989 spread throughout many jurisdictions with comprehensive social welfare systems throughout the 1990's. Principally promoted in a 'bottom-up' manner by enthusiasts and practitioners, the approach grew in popularity as the result of a 'movement' among some social care professionals. The model challenges the orthodoxy of traditional decision-making forums in child welfare and, in line with wider philosophical and economic changes, facilitates the empowerment of the family. Despite local adaptation and application of the model in the fields of juvenile justice and education, the core principles of approach are apparent throughout its iterations. However, despite these factors, the model has often failed to attract government backing and has been inconsistently applied within different jurisdictions. The failure of FGDM to really 'take off' is addressed within the next chapter, which discusses a number of important debates around the core issue of the approach's marginality.

« Previous | Contents | Next »