« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Chapter Three: Theoretical and Practical Debates Concerning the Use and Usefulness of FGDM
Introduction
1.3.1 There are many points of theory and practice about which considerable debate has emerged in the relevant FGDM literature. The crux of many of these debates is the tension between the central tenets of the FGDM model and the role of social care professionals and traditional decision-making processes. This chapter explores some of these issues, providing examples from the international literature in an effort to analyse these matters comparatively. While these problems are marked by their apparently intractable nature, some practical guidance on the basis of published research, along with suggestions for further research, are provided where appropriate.
1.3.2 Overall, there are five key areas of concern identified in relation to FGDM:
- the extent to which FGDM empowers the family in practice;
- problems implementing and mainstreaming FGDM;
- the extent to which FGDM can be applied to different situations and how the model deals with family power imbalances;
- 'drift' from the core principles of the FGDM model; and,
- whether FGDM promotes the interests of children in long-term.
Empowering the Family?
1.3.3 Lupton and Nixon's (1999) work on FGDM is principally concerned with the issue of empowerment. They argue that the attractiveness of this principle has been one of the main drivers in the development and growth of FGDM. However, empowerment is a difficult concept to define and measure within specific contexts. Discussing the ramifications of 'empowerment' for consumers and professionals, they argue that a consensus on the principles and agenda of empowerment (who should be empowered, why) needs to be agreed upon before it can have a meaningful effect. However, these kinds of debates are not in evidence, with empowerment being promoted principally by professionals themselves ( FGDMs late 80's/early 90's growth occurred because of 'bottom-up' promotion by enthusiasts). Under such circumstances 'empowerment' is likely to lose much of its reflexivity and may perpetuate client disempowerment, reinforcing passivity and lack of self-determination while strengthening professional power. Further problems arise when empowerment is constrained by ideological (risk-aversion, lack of consensus on the aims of empowerment) or practical (ineffectual nature of interventions, financial constraints) factors 18. Although these arguments appear rather dramatic when logically extended in this fashion, the unforeseen consequences of well-meaning professionals empowering individuals without those individuals being 'on-board' with the process are worthy of further scrutiny. Similarly, clients who do not wish to be, or are resistant to being, empowered present problems in terms of how (or indeed whether) choice can be promoted within contemporary social work practices.
1.3.4 Jackson & Morris' (1999) analysis of youth justice FGDM schemes in England and Wales indicates that family members participating in the Hampshire pilot often thought they had little choice in whether or not to accept FGDM. Furthermore, in cases where choice was recognised, they reasoned that the only available alternative was a court appearance. Therefore, in practice, families tended to see referral as a fait accompli; few actively chose FGDM and families became the objects of professional attempts to 'empower' them. Moreover, in the absence of specific referral criteria they became 'hostages to fortune' in the sense that referral was governed by the particular view of FGDM taken by individual workers 19. Despite this apparent lack of control, Jackson & Morris concede that most families were positive about their FGC.
1.3.5 Evidence from the child welfare and protection fields is rather more ambivalent. A number of studies report that when given the choice of a referral for FGDM, families frequently chose not to participate in such programs. Sundell (2000) reports that 85% of families refused to participate in the Swedish pilots, while Brown (2001) and Thomas et al's (2003) randomised controlled studies both experienced overwhelming problems due to the lack of families willing to undertake FGDM. Although these problems could be associated with other contextual factors they cast some doubt on the consequences of empowerment and raise questions as to whether and how communities can be empowered from outwith.
1.3.6 Most evaluations of FGDM schemes (assumed to be voluntary) report high process satisfaction ratings for families, which may equate to feelings of empowerment arising from the FGC. On the one hand, it may be argued that those families opting for FGDM are generally amenable to, and suitable for, the process and hence, more likely to be satisfied by it. However, should high process satisfaction ratings apply to all families (regardless of the nature of involvement) the question of whether the ends justify the means presents itself. Moreover, can meaningful empowerment arise from procedural satisfaction, or can such mechanisms only be truly empowering if they confer lasting benefits on participating families, allowing them to favourably alter their circumstances 20? Lupton & Nixon (1999) argue that, in order to be empowered, families must experience beneficial outcomes in both spheres. Process and outcome findings are examined below, but it is important at this stage to elucidate some of the philosophical issues that may impact upon whether such outcomes may be achieved.
1.3.7 As discussed above, many countries implementing FGDM have also adopted wider neo-liberal philosophies with which the model is consistent. Accompanying features of such philosophies are an emphasis on individual responsibility and the implementation of programmes to reduce the scope of welfare state interventions and utilise other community-based resources. Such programmes entail reductions in spending as the state turns from a 'service provider' role, becoming a facilitator and co-ordinator of resources. Considered alongside this shift, evidence of insufficient funding for FGDM projects, refusal of FGC plans and requests for service provision or compulsion in referring families to FGDM programmes could be problematic, creating an impression of enforced self-reliance rather than empowerment.
1.3.8 There is little evidence that FGDM reduces families' need for state welfare provision. Merkel-Holguin et al (2003) state that many 'process' evaluations found that, despite increasing resource provision from the extended family, FGDM does not diminish requests for statutory and community service provision. Burford & Pennell's (1995) evaluation of an FGDM scheme in Newfoundland reports that 31 of 36 plans requested counselling services, while 23 requested in-home support. Moreover, they argue that despite family's willingness to provide assistance to other family members, their identified needs were, to some extent, consistent with the level and types of resources available in their community. The level of information provided at FGCs meant that families were better able to co-ordinate the types of help required and consequently FGDM did not reduce social service input. Marsh & Crow (1998) also state that the most frequently requested form of service provision in FGC plans was counselling or support (92% of requests). In all, 24 families in the UK pilots sought help from social services only, whereas 46 asked for multi-agency assistance. Therefore, FGC plans were considerably more likely to entail the involvement of multiple agencies than plans resulting from traditional processes.
1.3.9 Further information regarding service provision and associated cost implications is considered in Chapter Four. However, at this stage it is sufficient to recognise the potential for difficulties both in the areas of voluntary involvement/choice and service provision. While encouraging appropriate families to accept responsibility for problems may be politically attractive as well as beneficial and empowering, if any of the respective ideological, practical and financial pre-conditions of FGDM are absent, conferencing could be viewed as a means of off-loading problems onto families rather than as an effective means of empowering them.
Implementation
1.3.10 Although social work professionals often profess to agree with the core values that inform the FGDM model, the principles at the heart of such initiatives present a significant challenge to their dominant position within the social welfare field. One of the main issues affecting FGDM is the inherent difficulty of introducing family empowerment techniques into practice contexts dominated by professionals.
1.3.11 Implementing FGDM entails reconfiguring both the roles of 'expert' social care workers and the traditional power relations between them and recipients of social care. Within such schemes, the worker is no longer a 'do-er', providing solutions to problems, making and executing care plans, but is instead a facilitator, empowering families to make decisions about the welfare of their own children. A prerequisite of such a role is that families who may previously have been seen by professionals as poorly equipped to make such decisions are recognised as possessing expert knowledge and are entrusted with the power to make decisions and to execute care plans. The role of social workers within such schemes is limited to enabling families to participate, advising on procedural matters, providing information at the FGC and monitoring outcomes 21. Responding to such a change presents a considerable challenge both for workers and for families accustomed to the format of traditional social work interventions (Holland et al: 2005).
1.3.12 It is self-evident that where tension exists between interests entrenched around traditional practices and innovative new developments, problems may occur in implementing such initiatives. Furthermore, Doolan (1999) argues that the conditions often found in contemporary social work departments (professionals are characterised as lacking autonomy and flexibility and working within increasingly conservative and managerialist-oriented departments) are not conducive to workers implementing innovative procedures. Therefore, in the absence of a legislative mandate for FGDM, implementation may be patchy, referrals are likely to be infrequent, structures may be influenced by professionalism and the model's intended aims could be subverted.
"Social workers in hierarchical and disabling structures will not easily practice principles that requires trust, flexibility and respect for people's skills, if they themselves are not treated in this way" (Doolan: 1999: 10)
1.3.13 Doolan argues that, faced with these problems, the alternatives to enacting legislation are to pursue FGDM through procedure (principles contained in guidance) or through the promotion of best practice (where staff are encouraged to work within a refocused practice paradigm). However, he considers that successful implementation by either of these means could require a deconstruction of the child protection discourse, a deconstruction of the dominant process (i.e. replacement of modes of decision-making, move to shared activities, increased user involvement) and wider structural change so that the initiative becomes seen as the preferred way of working.
1.3.14 It does not appear that these challenges have been successfully met in many countries with FGDM projects. Lupton & Nixon (1999) argue that the main challenge for UK social work teams has been in making links between FGCs and existing practices and meetings. They argue that implementation and mainstreaming of FGDM has proven difficult because of the contradictions between FGDM and traditional approaches and the view held by many social workers that FGDM is simply 'another technique' to use on families rather than a means of framing an agency's actions.
1.3.15 Evidence from other schemes also indicates that FGDM projects have had a limited impact on social work practices. Merkel-Holguin et al (2003) argue that many schemes struggle with a low volume of referrals due to social worker's lack of time, fears about personal liability and risk, concerns it will lead to an increased workloads and a lack of support for the process. A number of reports from countries where FGDM is not legislatively mandated (Holland et al (2005), Brown (2003), Merkel-Holguin et al (2003), Sundell (2000), Rasmussen (2003), Roujanavong (2005), Chandler & Giovannucci (2004)) observe that, initially, workers tend not to refer cases for FGDM because of a lack of interest, insufficient time or resources, high staff turnover or unfamiliarity with the relevant procedures. Certainly, evidence from Chandler & Giovannucci (2004) appears to indicate that initial referrals are based on a narrow conception of suitability. However, when workers become more familiar with the procedures of FGCs and gain confidence in their abilities, their application tends to broaden in practice. On the other hand, many jurisdictions experience no positive change in referral rates over the long-term. Mandell et al (2001) report that the Toronto project anticipated running around 60 conferences over 30 months but only achieved 25, an average of less than one a month from a pool of only two referrals per month. Factors influencing the referral rate here included high workloads, high staff turnover, the introduction of new legislation and training requirements, time constraints, funding formulas and risk aversion. Rasmussen (2003) also notes that two of the Danish counties studied 'never really got started' implementing their FGDM project due to time and resource problems and high staff turnover.
1.3.16 In a rare study of the correlates of social worker's referral decisions, Sundell (2000) reports that the use of FGDM in Sweden was initially low (only 10% of investigations resulted in a FGC) and declined over time. Overall, FGCs were offered to only a third of parents with less than half (41%) of social workers referring and most (67%) only doing so on one occasion. Despite referring social workers reporting largely positive experiences, the majority also expressed doubts about using FGDM because they distrusted the family and feared the loss of professional power. High staff turnover (42% of social workers left within two years) and a high refusal rate among families (75%) also compounded these problems. Sundell et al (2001) also report remarkable similarities in their comparative analysis of findings from Sweden and the UK - the average number of FGCs implemented per social worker was 0.49 in both countries, only a minority referred and most only did so once. Relating referral patterns to attitudes, they found that individual social worker involvement in local decisions to implement FGDM led to higher referral rates in both countries. Therefore, somewhat unsurprisingly, enthusiasm for the model appears to be related to referral 22.
1.3.17 These detailed findings mirror those of Marsh & Crow's earlier study (1998) which also indicated that, despite recognising the potential benefits of FGDM and expressing a very low level of opposition to the model, a third of social workers said they didn't wish to use it. They found no link between referral and positive perceptions of training, but those workers who were most critical of current practices were most likely to use FGCs. Overall, forty per cent of social workers thought FGDM threatened them or reduced their power. Mandell et al (2001) found that a general lack of training was associated with poor levels of understanding of the scheme, non-acceptance of the FGDM philosophy and a low volume of referrals.
1.3.18 Failure by authorities to properly endorse and resource FGDM is criticised by Sundell (2000), Marsh & Crow (1998) and Brown (2003) and may lie at the heart of these contradictory attitudes to FGDM and the failure to maintain the initial momentum and bring the model into mainstream practice. Providing a legislative mandate for FGDM would circumvent some of these problems by requiring that the model be applied under certain circumstances. However, in the absence of such a mandate, a clear policy commitment to FGDM or a pilot thereof may help to encourage its use and demonstrate its efficacy. However, within any such initiative social workers would obviously retain, and would exercise (or not) the power to refer. Providing social workers with the confidence, autonomy and flexibility to make an appropriate volume of referrals in the current climate could however be problematic.
1.3.19 Encouraging successful implementation within non-legislatively mandated settings is problematic. Hoover (2005) argues against implementing FGDM in the form of a program, arguing that such initiatives may be cut and that using the model should constitute part of the core practice of social welfare agencies (subjecting them to the vagaries of political tides could send the wrong messages to implementers). He argues that committing to core FGDM values and using a carefully planned, multi-agency approach to work towards a closely evaluated, voluntary practice is the best way to proceed. Merkel-Holguin et al (2003), summarizing material from other evaluations, largely concur. They argue that most countries opt to implement FGDM through the dissemination and promotion of best practice. In such instances, implementation takes time and requires careful planning that is responsive to local contexts. Building strong strategic alliances with families, communities and stakeholders through consultation, formulating mission statements and protocols, disseminating information and identifying shared resources and funding streams are important steps in the process of implementation. Marsh & Crow (1998), drawing on the experience of the UK pilots, argue that individual commitment to the model was necessary and that the appointment of a project manager (to oversee implementation, resourcing and to keep the issue in people's minds) was desirable. The appointment of a steering group staffed by high profile stakeholders was also helpful in securing resources and maintaining the profile of schemes while involving social work staff in implementation assisted in their smooth introduction. However, whether FGDM could be described as mainstream practice in any of these jurisdictions is a moot point, therefore considerable doubts remain regarding whether the approach has the potential to form a principal element of social work practice without enacting legislation to require its use.
1.3.20 A further point to consider in thinking about mainstreaming FGDM is the strong 'purist' element evident in some literature. In spite of there being an urge among many (e.g. Doolan, Merkel-Holguin) to 'mainstream' the model, others warn against unchecked growth. Lupton & Nixon (1999) warn against the standardisation of FGDM through a proliferation of protocols, arguing that in order to maintain commitment to the model, practice must be creative and innovative. The sense of FGDM as a 'movement' would be extremely difficult to maintain were it to become mainstream practice. Such a change may also lead to the dilution of core principles, or at the least a trade-off in relation to some key areas of practice (e.g. if referral volumes were to increase, preparation time may be restricted). In short, there is much ambivalence in the debate; some observers (many of them practitioners) desire FGDM's popularity but profess resistance towards the perceived inevitability of routinisation. However, the current situation where only a minimal number of families actually get to have a conference and FGDM is a marginal practice in countries without a legislative mandate (Merkel-Holguin et al: 2003) is clearly dissatisfactory. If the approach proves beneficial in terms of empowering and involving families and improving long-term outcomes, efforts to enhance the breadth and depth of implementation should be redoubled while attempting to ensure that a consensus exists around the core principles of the model.
Limitations in the Applicability of FGDM
1.3.21 FGDM has been introduced into a fairly wide-range of contexts. However, many practitioners, supported by a number of studies, have identified persistent doubts regarding the applicability of the model. The general shape of FGC referrals reflects a number of concerns. Specific case-related issues regarding safety or the decision-making abilities of families may be cited by social workers as a reason not to refer. Evidence also suggests that referral decisions tend to be informed by broader opinions which may exclude entire categories of problems, such as views regarding the proper 'place' of high-risk cases within the ambit of professional knowledge and power. Also, as discussed above, concerns regarding disempowerment or the lack of involvement and enthusiasm discussed by Sundell et al (2001) may operate at an even more abstract level, making referral per se unlikely.
1.3.22 The FGDM model could, from some perspectives, be viewed as naïvely optimistic about the ability of families to resolve issues cordially. It could also be seen to ignore genuine differences in needs among family members (Holland et al: 2005). Lupton & Nixon (1999) argue that those often in custody may not be suitable for FGDM along with families experiencing violence, child sex abuse or incest because of confidentiality and power issues that may arise. Like traditional decision-making forums, in instances where sexual or domestic abuse has occurred in the family there may be concerns that power imbalances may nullify the relevant procedures and their intended outcomes. Conflict may arise during the FGC as extended family members meet and discuss issues, or privileged information may be unwittingly shared among participants. Significant concern has been expressed about the safety of individuals in such cases, both during the conference itself (specifically, private family time has been the locus of such concerns) and afterwards during the execution of plans. Marsh & Crow (1998) found that professionals supported private family time but were likely to express concerns regarding the possibility of conflict arising in what is a minimally controlled environment 23.
1.3.23 In non-mandatory applications of the FGDM model, restrictions can be placed on the intake of projects either by social workers not referring certain types of cases, or by the projects actively excluding cases according to specific criteria or restricting their work to certain areas. Marsh & Crow (1998) examined social worker's attitudes towards referral, finding that only 21% would not refer because of the nature of a case. However, Sundell et al (2001) report that only a third of Swedish and UK social workers interviewed thought FGCs could work equally well for all types of cases. Murray et al (2001) report concerns from several Scottish professionals that FGDM was not suitable for use in child protection cases. However, Burford & Pennell (1995) argue that there was no good reason to exclude families on the basis of sexual abuse, psychiatric disorders or developmental delays - they argued that the main criteria were simply having children in common and a wish for reconciliation.
1.3.24 Aside from the identification of 'suitable' problems for FGDM, there may be a further issue regarding the selection of 'appropriate' families by social workers. The existence of an extensive network of support for the family to draw upon appears to be a pertinent restriction on the applicability of FGCs. Marsh & Crow (1998) state that 48% of social workers associated referral decisions with their knowledge of a client's extended family. Lupton & Nixon (1999) also concede that FGC may be of questionable value where there is no cohesive family unit. While this may be a valid concern, choosing to refer only those families considered likely to succeed using the FGC approach could be seen as 'cherry-picking' participants, with the result that a false impression of the effectiveness of the approach may be created. On the other hand, unprincipled referral for FGCs (Lilja (1997) reports that families with intractable long-term problems were sometimes referred in the hope of a quick-fix), without heeding the likelihood of achieving a solution, could unduly detract from the model's success (Marsh & Crow: 1998). It is clear that in order to undertake a robust examination of the effectiveness of FGDM, consistency of referral approaches between social workers is required. Training highlighting FGDM principles, referral guidelines and clear managerial commitment to achieving those principles may be necessary preconditions for achieving such consistency.
1.3.25 In relation to exclusion by the schemes themselves, Nixon et al's (2005) survey reveals that 60% of FGDM schemes screened out some referrals (the proportions were highest in youth justice (67%) and school conferencing (66%)). Although detailed data were lacking on the basis of these criteria, voluntary acceptance of the FGDM process or of the problem were the most prevalent inclusion criteria, followed by acceptance of guilt (relevant to justice applications). Jackson & Morris (1999) point out that UK practitioners and policy makers tend to view FGDM as a useful model for low-risk cases. Chandler & Giovannucci (2004) and Graber et al (1996) also state that similar reservations about the appropriateness of FGDM persist in the US. They point out that although there is no empirical data to support such concerns, many US schemes effectively exclude some referrals (62% excluded sexual abuse cases, 46% excluded cases of domestic violence and 15% excluded cases where severe physical abuse occurred - NCJFCJ survey (2001) cited in Chandler & Giovannucci (2004)) until such a time as they were encouraged to include them, or until workers became more confident in the relevant procedures and their ability to administer them. In Marsh & Crow's study (1998), among the 40% of FGCs involving child protection cases, a disproportionate number related to incidents of neglect rather than physical or sexual abuse, possibly indicating a reluctance to refer 'high-risk' cases.
1.3.26 Despite such reservations, Merkel-Holguin et al's (2003) international review of FGDM research found that the majority of projects do attempt to implement FGCs across a range of issues of differing levels of severity. However, they point out that expansion into more challenging cases often only occurs as schemes become more established and co-ordinators more adept at organising, preparing and facilitating conferences. Furthermore, they argue that, after some time, the backgrounds and risk attributes of children referred for a FGC come to resemble those of children subject to traditional social welfare interventions. Crampton & Jackson's (2000) study of referrals to the Kent County, Michigan scheme between 1996 and 1999 (discussed in Helland (2005)) showed that the type of abuse had little bearing on whether a plan was successfully formulated at a FGC. Burford & Pennell's (1995) evaluation of the Newfoundland scheme which specialised in family violence cases also suggests that FGDM can be used successfully in cases posing a very high level of risk.
1.3.27 There appears then, to be substantial evidence that FGDM can be utilised across a number of settings and with cases of varying risk levels. Nixon et al's (2005) survey reveals that 67% of FGDM schemes focused on more than one type of referral, with 41% open to three or more types of referral. As the trend in the UK appears to indicate the consolidation of 'established' schemes rather than the emergence of new pilots (Brown: 2003), it may be that such expansion is currently occurring here. However, as regards FGDMs effectiveness across a range of settings, more research needs to be undertaken to establish comparative satisfaction levels and the associated perceptions of participants along with long-term comparative outcome evaluations.
Principled practice
1.3.28 On the issue of the subversion of FGDM principles, the literature is equivocal. There is evidence that practical drift from ideological principles occurs in both legislatively and non-legislatively mandated contexts.
1.3.29 Some of the literature originating from New Zealand reveals some disconcerting departures from the core principles of FGDM. Paterson & Harvey (1991) reported that professionals often failed to comply with their obligations in the preparatory stage, failing to give families sufficient control over the time and place of a FGC and inadequately preparing them for the meeting itself. Lupton & Nixon (1999) also report concerns raised in other New Zealand evaluations about the poor attendance of professional information givers and the low quality of information provided by them.
1.3.30 Robertson (1996) reported the professional domination and manipulation of FGCs in New Zealand in the mid-1990s. Summarizing this and other early New Zealand evaluations, Lupton & Nixon (1999) discuss evidence that professionals often presented families with non-negotiable bottom lines, attempted to take over meetings and used them to 'rubber stamp' their own decisions. Furthermore, they contend that professionals remained or attempted to remain present during 'private family time' and the formulation of plans. Cashmore & Kiely's (2000) evaluation of the legislatively-mandated New South Wales pilot also reports that non-negotiable bottom lines were routinely used by the social work department and Children's Court to demarcate the boundaries of family decision-making. Summarising New Zealand research, Helland (2005) states that only 62% of co-ordinators reported that private family time always occurred while 35% said it occurred most of the time. The most commons for private family time not occurring (i.e. discussions involved professionals) were that this was because of family requests, unsuitable family dynamics or not enough family members being present to constitute a notional quorum. Although evidently a request for professionals to be present had to be made by the family, there may be concern about opportunities for professional influence in this component of FGDM.
1.3.31 Also in the New Zealand context, Pakura (2004) reports that a failure to adequately resource FGDM has resulted in poor conference attendance among low income families and that anxiety about low levels of resources for community services has resulted in more children being taken into care. Lupton & Nixon (1999) argue that the lack of resources assigned to facilitating family attendance poses questions about the level of support for the FGDM process and conference plans. In addition, they cite Rimene's study (1993) which suggests affordability was used as a criterion influencing the acceptance of FGC plans. It is also argued that the process of appointing co-ordinators was defective and resulted in the alienation of these staff from their colleagues (they were initially paid more than social workers). Furthermore, the appointment of too few co-ordinators meant insufficient time and attention was spent developing and gathering knowledge of the community resources central to successful plan implementation. Clearly there are practical lessons for successful implementation which should be acknowledged.
1.3.32 A number of similar concerns are evident in the literature from non-legislatively mandated contexts. Holland et al's (2005) qualitative evaluation of a Welsh project reports that despite expressing strong attachment to FGDM principles, professionals tended to retain control over decision-making. They argue that professionalism crept into proceedings with the presentation of pre-written statements or lists during the meeting, agenda-setting, provision of tasks for completion during private family time and assistance provided to families when formulating plans. Reporting on Washington State's FGDM scheme, Hardin (1996) states some professionals attempted to alter plans. In Canada, Pennell & Burford (2000) also argue that professionals exercised some influence over decision-making after the completion of private family time.
1.3.33 Widening the perspective to incorporate issues of organisation and funding, Jackson & Morris (1999) report the views of co-ordinators from the Hampshire pilot that professionals did not provide families with sufficient information about resources tailored to the young person's needs at the information-giving stage. Nor, they argue, were promised resources necessarily appropriate or forthcoming and no single agency had responsibility for ensuring that resources for plan components were allocated effectively. Merkel-Holguin (2000) reports that some US jurisdictions permit professionals to provide plan recommendations and details of associated resources and services during the information-giving stage. This represents an interesting example of a subtle means of influencing (and arguably stunting the creativity of) family decision-making. Lupton & Nixon's (1999) meta-analysis of UKFGC research also reports that resources for plans were often not delivered despite the relevant requests being regarding as reasonable. It is argued that these problems were due to resource issues and differing levels of commitment to the FGC process.
1.3.34 Despite the well-founded concerns aroused by these findings, referring to deviation from core FGDM principles as wrong per se would be inaccurate. One of the elements of FGDM most prized by even the most trenchant purist is the ability of the approach to adapt to circumstance. Whether in a legislatively or non-legislatively mandated context, actions such as restricting private family time are not necessarily to the detriment of proceedings - participants with literacy problems may require help with aspects of the FGC and special interventions may be necessary in cases involving family violence - and are often welcomed by families. However, the extent to which reliance on professionals is rooted in dependence on traditional social work practices poses problems in terms of empowerment. Also, such adaptation may occur as professionals attempt to impose familiar structures on conferences because of their anxieties regarding a loss of control or a lack of faith in the ability of families to make decisions. Indeed, there is a fine line between providing legitimate assistance and stymieing the principles of family empowerment which underpin FGDM.
1.3.35 The existence of this tension at the heart of FGDM is further of worthy of further examination and raises important questions about schemes which selectively adhere to the core principles of the approach. Are these core principles inviolate? What impact do such compromises have on the quality of the FGDM outcomes? Merkel-Holguin (2000) sees a definite danger of 'drift' arising from the adaptability and absence of universal standards valued by FGDM purists. This, she argues, may lead to compromises in the quality of schemes and the potential for evaluation thereof. Particularly damaging, she argues, are the pressures toward disempowering the family by cutting corners in the process of preparing for a FGC, enhancing the role of professionals or curtailing private family time. She argues that such changes subvert the principles underlying conferencing and may compromise the safety of participants both at the FGC itself and afterwards, by restricting the range of possible outcomes and perhaps dismissing those which could have been most satisfactory.
1.3.36 Despite the apparent support among social workers for such procedures and principles (Sundell et al (2001) report high levels of agreement among British and Swedish social workers with a statement confirming the importance of private family time), private family time and the principle of expanding the circle are the loci of their concerns about risk and conflict and have most frequently been targeted for exclusion or modification. In the US particularly core principles are not consistently applied across jurisdictions (Chandler & Giovannucci: 2004, Merkel-Holguin: 2000). In Miami, some parents were not informed that they could invite other family members to their conference. Most notably though, Oregon's Family Unity Meetings de-emphasise the role of extended family (parents are granted a veto against the attendance of other family members), meetings are carried out by service staff and there is no private family time (however, as discussed above, FUMs have gradually become more like FGCs over time). Nixon et al (2005) report that, internationally, 73% of schemes incorporated private family time, with those in the youth justice field least likely to do so (33%). Marsh & Crow (1998) reported that, in the UK pilots, private family time occurred in nearly all cases, but two projects merely offered it to families with the result that five of eleven families had professionals with them during private family time.
1.3.37 The philosophical importance of 'involving the extended family' and 'private family time' are unquestionable in the eyes of purists. However, there is little research available on long-term FGDM outcomes and even less on the contributions made to these by specific components of the model. However, Burford & Pennell (1995) imply the existence of a link between private family time and outcomes and argue that private family time is the element of conferencing most critical to improvements in family functioning. They contend that the value of private family time resides in its promotion of a unified approach among family members and encouragement that they take responsibility for problems. Therefore, although there is no direct, causal link between the two, private family time may contribute significantly towards the realisation of positive outcomes by helping lay the necessary foundations for positive family functioning.
1.3.38 Despite finding that most families perceived private family time as beneficial, in a small proportion of cases they observed, the researchers also recognise the undue influence of powerful family members. They argue that formulating a clear and concise statement of purpose for the conference enhances the ability of families to maintain their focus on the issues and prevents some individuals from subverting the relevant agenda. Statements of purpose may also help to address the concerns of some professionals that issues relevant to the problem were not discussed during conferences (Murray et al: 2001). Specifically on the issue of professional involvement, they state that families are the main decision-makers as long as professionals leave the room during private deliberations. Where they fail to do so (for whatever reason), it is likely that they will end up facilitating the process. Participation of the co-ordinator in private family time was reported in some US states, with the result that subsequent family perceptions of the utility of this element of the FGC diminished (Merkel-Holguin et al: 2003). Quite how such drift from core principles affects long-term outcomes is untested and requires rigorous examination if the central tenets of the FGDM approach are to be applied selectively. Clearly, many argue that the subversion of principles which form the basis of a scheme's operation should be avoided if scheme integrity is to be maintained. However, further research is required in order to ascertain the real cost of 'trading-off' elements of FGDM by design.
Children's Participation
1.3.39 As discussed above, family empowerment is a central theme in the philosophy and operation of FGDM. The accompanying debate (Lupton & Nixon: 1999, Jackson & Morris: 1999) has recently spawned a further discussion specifically about the empowerment of children and vulnerable adults. Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) states that children are entitled to express their views on matters of concern to them and that these views must be given proper consideration (Gill et al: 2003). Although FGDM offers an ideal opportunity for children to be consulted and have a say in matters which affect them, there are persistent doubts about whether their voices are heard within a context easily dominated by professionals or adults from the extended family. Debate on this matter also centres on the risks and type of information children may be exposed to within FGCs and the fact that, unlike in some traditional child welfare settings (e.g. Children's Hearings), children have no tangible rights when participating in a FGC.
1.3.40 Dawson & Yancey (2006) cite Heino (2003) and Sieppert & Yvonne (2003), arguing that children should not be, but often are, overlooked as a source of knowledge, leadership and power in FGDM. While social workers often express concerns regarding the attendance of children at FGCs, co-ordinators and children themselves are generally positive about their FGC and therefore attend most conferences (Marsh & Crow: 1998). Robertson (1996) reports that children were present at 79% of FGCs held in New Zealand. Marsh & Crow (1998), summarising other research from New Zealand, state that children were present at nearly all FGCs held there. In relation to their own research on the UK pilots, they found that all but four children aged over ten who were invited attended a FGC, although sometimes carers refused to allow younger children to attend. Overall, 80% of 11 to 18 year olds attended a FGC compared to 11% of similar children who attended case conference meetings. Sundell & Haeggmann (1999) report that 88% of children aged 10 to 15 were present at FGCs run in the Swedish pilot, whereas 100% of children of the same age group were present at Danish FGCs (Rasmussen & Hansen: 2002, cited in Rasmussen: 2003). Nixon et al (2005) state that, internationally, at almost two thirds of schemes (65%) children attended more than half of all FGCs. When schemes were asked what restrictions were placed on their attendance, the most prevalent response (39%) was a child's age or developmental status would be taken into account (e.g. Pennell & Burford (2000) report that in Newfoundland FGCs were not normally attended by children under 12.). Over a quarter of schemes (27%) also stated that restrictions specific to the situation were imposed on children's attendance (based on the co-ordinator's assessment of risk and the best interests of the child).
1.3.41 Despite their relatively high levels of attendance and evidence of positive process evaluations, views about the level of participation in a FGC may be negative among children. The evidence relevant to this assertion is discussed in detail in the section below on process satisfaction. However, for the purposes of this discussion it is sufficient to state that a significant minority of children felt their participation was limited during their FGC. Reasons for low involvement focus on a lack of opportunities to speak, domination of proceedings by family members etc. The needs of all parties should be met during a FGC, but the contradictory findings relating to satisfaction and engagement with the process may indicate that some schemes were better able to meet these needs than others.
1.3.42 Holland & O'Neill's (2006) evaluation of a child-focused FGDM project in Wales found that when asked about the role of the FGC children felt that seeing family members and expressing themselves were the main aims. Meanwhile, adult family members, social workers and co-ordinators felt that practical outcomes were most central to the process. These findings indicate that when participating in FGCs the agenda and needs of young people may diverge significantly from the needs of adult family members. Divergence in perceptions of the role of a FGC suggests that separate arrangements for preparing and providing information to children may be required. Dawson & Yancey's (2006) evaluation of the 'Connected and Cared For' project in Washington State concluded that it was important that children had a developmentally appropriate sense of control about their role in the conference and were mindful that disappointment (in terms of outcomes) could occur and were prepared for it. They argue that much of this could be achieved through pre-conference discussion with young people and post-conference follow-up and support by the co-ordinator.
1.3.43 While such measures may help in the stages before and after a conference, individuals may also experience difficulties during the conference itself. Many schemes attempt to identify a person within the family or extended family to support the young person at this stage. Gill et al (2003) argue that an independent co-ordinator is particularly useful in helping prepare children for the meeting and facilitating the appointment of independent advocates or helping to identify advocates from within the family. Marsh & Crow (1998) summarising research from New Zealand, state that around a third of children present at FGCs there had an advocate, while in their own UK evaluation 43% received support. Sixty-one per cent of children participating in Swedish FGCs (Sundell & Haeggmann: 1999) also received support. Horan & Dalrymple (2003) argue for an independent advocate in instances where no such individual exists or where complex power relations preclude their identification. They reported that the advocate worked with the young person to help them negotiate and manage their involvement within the family network in a way that was acceptable to them and which enabled them to express themselves. Evaluating a Barnardo's FGC project in Wiltshire, they concluded that advocates were an effective aid to understanding and involvement for young people participating in FGCs.
1.3.44 Although no evidence could be found which compared children's satisfaction with elements of the FGDM process and outcomes where advocate use was the independent variable, the need to take action in order to remedy possible perceptions of exclusion is readily apparent from the literature. Furthermore, given the lack of legal rights provided to children by the FGDM approach when compared to other Scottish child welfare forums, it is prudent to ensure that all possible steps are taken to ensure children's voices are heard in relation to matters that concern them.
Summary
1.3.45 In this chapter a number of theoretical and practical debates identified in the FGDM literature were considered. The extent to which FGDM empowers the family was discussed, locating this element of the model within the wider ideological and financial changes occurring throughout the 1990's. This considered the reality and meaning of empowerment within contemporary social care and raised issues regarding the consequences of facilitating choice. The tension between professionalism and family empowerment were discussed in the following section which examined some of the reasons for the marginality of FGDM. In particular, a generalised reluctance to refer families to FGDM projects was identified among social workers working within risk-averse contemporary social work contexts. Alongside such individualised issues, the debate on the promotion of FGDM via mandate or best practice was introduced, outlining that an absence of strong governmental support for the model may also have restricted its application.
1.3.46 A further aspect of the marginalisation debate is the question of in what sort of cases FGDM can be successfully used. The perceptions of referrers and practitioners were explored along with existing patterns. It was found that while some referrers and schemes excluded families on the basis of individual issues (e.g. number of family members, specific individualised risks), others applied broader restrictions based on the types of problems or level of risk encountered. The basis of these restrictions was examined critically, concluding that further research needs to undertaken in order to properly ascertain which types of cases FGDM can be effectively and safely used for. Under the title 'principled practice' the intentional and unintentional subversion of FGDM's operating principles was examined. Evidence was presented that in both legislatively and non-legislatively mandated settings 'drift' from core principles is occurring in the form of inadequate preparation, limiting family attendance, professionalisation of the conference and specifically of 'private family time', inadequate resourcing and poor information provision. The experience of designed non-adherence to core FGDM principles was examined, with different perspectives evident throughout the literature. Some effort was made to establish the basis of these deviations and the alleged inviolability of such principles in the eyes of FGDM purists.
1.3.47 Finally, the question of whether FGDM promotes children's long-term interests was addressed. While FGDM offers a theoretical opportunity for children to be consulted and to have a say in matters which principally affect them, there are persistent doubts about the risks they face and whether their voices are heard within a context easily dominated by professionals or adults from the extended family. Although it appears that children and young people above a certain age attend most FGCs, a significant minority find themselves excluded from the process itself. The role of the co-ordinator and the use of advocates are examined as means of promoting the participation of children and young people. Aside from the theoretical importance of doing so, there also appears to be some factual basis for approaching the preparation and care of children in a different manner to that of adult participants at FGCs.
« Previous | Contents | Next »