« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Chapter Five: Lessons from Practice
Introduction
1.5.1 Literature on FGDM broadly supports the implementation and use of the approach: However, there are some persistent theoretical problems associated with the model and a generalised uncertainty regarding its efficacy in bringing about positive long-term outcomes. A number of important practice-related themes emerge from the literature. This section refers to these areas, discussing findings from international studies which often express considerable agreement on the centrality of certain roles or activities (i.e. preparation, co-ordinator independence). On other matters discussed there is some ambiguity or uncertainty as to best practice, but there is also wide recognition of the issue as a serious and valid concern for those implementing FGDM schemes (e.g. training). This section discusses a number of these themes, highlighting the relevant literature where appropriate in the hope that .further examination of these debates may help to establish them at the centre of discussions on implementation.
Co-ordinators
1.5.2 FGDM attempts to manage the tension between compulsory intervention and family choice through the role of the co-ordinator (Marsh & Crow: 1998). The co-ordinator's role is to engage and prepare participants for the FGC, raise safety issues that may affect the conference and assist in the creation of a plan to address the issues of concern. The co-ordinator also facilitates the conference itself and distributes copies of the plan afterwards (Merkel-Holguin & Wilmot: 2004). In most cases (80%), Nixon et al's survey revealed that the individual who prepared the conference also co-ordinated it. Overall, the role of co-ordinator is absolutely critical to achieving success in conferencing.
1.5.3 There has been some debate as to the preferred career background of FGG co-ordinators and how they should be recruited into FGDM schemes. Marsh & Crow (1998) report that in the early English and Welsh pilots almost all were recruited by word of mouth. Many co-ordinators came from a social work background (75% had a social work qualification, over half had experience in a social work area team and around 10% had worked in probation and education welfare) or had experience in teaching (around a third). The employment status and pay of co-ordinators varied between these schemes. In areas where co-ordinators were already employed by the social work department, it was decided their role would fit in with their existing work. However, this arrangement was not generally successful - in Wandsworth, stress resulting from cramming their co-ordination duties into ordinary work time led to the individual concerned withdrawing from their FGC role. In Hereford, social workers themselves prepared and co-ordinated conferences, resulting in a perception that meetings were sometimes convened to ratify professional decisions. Under these circumstances families felt that their agendas were not fully explored and issues not fully explained to them.
1.5.4 Current recruitment practice in Scotland requires that co-ordinators have a background in social work, health or education (Hamilton: 2005), effectively shaping recruitment so that it mirrors the actual composition of co-ordinators observed by Marsh & Crow (1998). Hamilton admits that such a policy may have a restrictive effect, imposing a professional, rather than community-led model onto FGC practices. Other jurisdictions employ a range of community or voluntary agency co-ordinators. Nixon et al (2005) state that most schemes (64%) use paid employees of the sponsoring agency as co-ordinators. Twenty per cent of schemes use paid contractors, ten per cent use aid volunteers and five per cent unpaid volunteers as co-ordinators. Merkel-Holguin (2003) argues that no consensus exists on which group performs best; the crucial factor is simply that implementation must be shaped by local context.
1.5.5 Although the status of co-ordinators and schemes do not necessarily go hand in hand, this issue raises further question about the position of FGDM schemes in relation to their main referrers. Is it beneficial if FGDM schemes are run by social work departments or is a position of independent affiliation preferable? No literature is available comparing referral patterns, process satisfaction and outcomes among schemes occupying such positions. Therefore, in the absence of such evidence, Merkel-Holguin's simple guidance that the model must fit the local context (i.e. be based upon the existing inter-agency frameworks and strategies) appears eminently sensible.
1.5.6 If FGDM schemes are to occupy a position of independence from their main referrers, they may be disadvantaged by social workers' lack of knowledge about the scheme or lack of familiarity with the staff concerned. However, the lack of social work influence may also benefit such schemes should they opt to adhere to core FGDM principles. The opposite is true of schemes positioned in or alongside social work departments - the benefits of higher referral volumes must be weighed against the potential for subversion or sidelining of elements of the scheme. A number of lessons emerge from New Zealand where the co-ordinator is an employee of the social work department (co-ordinating social worker) but is insulated from the referral process. Pakura (2004) argues that here, where social workers perceived co-ordinators' pay and conditions to be more favourable than their own, more care should have been taken to ensure that the terms of such appointments were perceived as equitable by other staff members. Also, ring-fencing co-ordinator's FGC-related time appears necessary if they continue to occupy another post. Regardless of their employer, there must also be a sufficient number of co-ordinators in post to permit community and resource development work to co-exist alongside preparatory work for FGCs.
1.5.7 Aside from employing those with a social work background, some schemes invite applications from a wider range of applicants possessing person-centred, facilitation skills. This raises questions regarding the appropriate 'skill set' of co-ordinators and whether there are any advantages in employing those with a social work or educational background. Marsh & Crow (1998) discuss co-ordinators' perceptions of the skills and qualities they thought were required in their role. Communication skills were thought important, particularly negotiation and mediation, along with the abilities to engage people, clarify and shape information. Skills in organising events, experience in group work, professional networking and a belief in the model were also though valuable. There was little support among co-ordinators for the idea that specialist social work skills were needed. However, social work experience was regarded as a possible advantage in that it equipped co-ordinators with knowledge of the types of directive behaviour they should try to avoid. Experience of working with other professionals, experience of working with people under stress or in distress, experience of group work and skills in maintaining clear boundaries were regarded as more important than a particular professional background. Co-ordinators also stressed the need for continuing support and supervision. There was little evidence of similar attention being paid to this subject by other researchers in the FGDM field. However, on the basis of this study it appears that there is no justified basis for restricting appointments to those with a social work background.
1.5.8 There is a great deal of evidence that once appointed, co-ordinators are potentially critical to the success of FGDM. Furthermore, there is also significant support from the literature for the independence of FGC co-ordinators (not in the structural sense discussed earlier, but in an occupational sense). Marsh & Crow argue that a range of international studies (Burford & Pennell: 1995, Maxwell & Morris: 1993, Lupton et al: 1995) comment on the centrality of the co-ordinator and call for attention to professional development, professional support and measures to secure their independence, which is often seen as integral to the success of FGCs. Mandell et al (2001) report unanimously positive perceptions of co-ordinators from families and workers alike. Murray et al (2001) also reports that almost all attendees of Scottish FGCs (families and professionals) praised co-ordinators. Barker & Barker (1995), Rosen (1994) and Lupton et al (1995) report family members being appreciative of co-ordinator's skills, successfully distinguishing them from other staff members and viewing their independence as a vital attribute. Cashmore & Kiely's (2000) study also showed very strong support among family members (81%) and professionals (100%) for co-ordinators being independent. In this study, co-ordinators saw their independence from case management and service provision duties as essential in maintaining their impartiality and shielding them from details of previous client involvement with welfare services. Social workers also appreciated the benefits of utilising independent co-ordinators (arguing they provided effective facilitation, were less threatening and aided arbitration between parties) and viewed them as necessary to engage some families.
1.5.9 Framing the issue even more starkly, Merkel-Holguin et al (2003) highlight research which suggests that perceptions of facilitator effectiveness may relate directly to outcomes. They identify at least one study in which this variable was a significant predictor of success, as judged by other FGC attendees. Although this issue requires further evaluation, it is justifiably seen as alarming by Lupton & Nixon (1999) who argue that such reliance on the skills of co-ordinators is an issue of concern for FGDM. If the very success of the approach hinges on the co-ordinator, this places a huge burden on their shoulders, allowing little margin for error in terms of appointments to FGDM projects or in the co-ordinators' execution of their duties. Given that co-ordinators may not always be able to exert influence over referrals, acting as passive recipients of referrals from an often inconsistent and unprincipled process, an absence of control may ultimately lead to stress and dissatisfaction. The institution of formal training, induction and supervision procedures may help to avoid such negative outcomes but may also distance FGDM from its roots as a movement.
Training
1.5.10 Training is an essential tool in establishing best practice throughout FGDM. While the appointment of co-ordinators with an appropriate 'skill set' may go some way towards ensuring appropriate staff are appointed, applying those skills appropriately requires training and ongoing supervision. Staff who refer to, or provide information at FGCs also require training in order to raise awareness of the model and contextualise FGDM and family empowerment within contemporary practice 25.
1.5.11 Despite the obvious need for good practice in relation to training, there is little discussion of the issue in the literature. Possibly the most comprehensive account of co-ordinator training in practice is from the initial UK pilots (Marsh & Crow: 1998), where, although there is little discussion of training content, the process of setting up training programmes is fully described. It was reported that training for staff and co-ordinators was initially developed by projects themselves with the result that considerable variation emerged (in one area co-ordinators met for training days/sessions for a period of more than a year before the project was launched, while in other areas ad hoc arrangements (including shadowing, learning on the job) emerged). In all areas social workers were asked to attend in-house training events which included a discussion of the FGDM model, the FGC process and implications for practice. Although there was widespread support for the training, an absence of 'refresher' events led to a dearth of detailed recollections about core issues. The need for ongoing training and the linking of training with FGDM ideals and principles featured strongly in comments emerging from these events.
1.5.12 Such suggestions may have contributed to the preparation of 'rough' guides for staff and co-ordinators by FRG. Information for staff included sections on who may require information about FGDM (e.g. social workers, other referrers) and provided guidance for potential information-givers (emphasising jargon-free writing). Information available for co-ordinators stressed the need for sufficient time to cover all aspects of training, need to direct the involvement of other staff, elements of supervision and role play. These guides also clarified elements of the model, emphasised organisational commitment to FGDM and the importance of supporting staff in implementing the approach. The need for on-going training for co-ordinators to ensure principles were adhered to and adapted where necessary was also recognised along with the need for appropriate supervision and the monitoring of progress.
1.5.13 In relation to the adoption of a new and innovative approach such as FGDM, the reflexive modification of training seen in the English and Welsh pilots appears to be an appropriate model to implement. Here, deficiencies in training methods used were detected and responded to effectively along with the demands of new developments and perceived training needs. Sandau-Beckler (2003) also identified five distinct future training needs as part of their evaluation of a New Mexico FGC scheme:
- Training for new case workers.
- Strengthening of conflict management skills
- Help with making and writing up a plan - case-specific activities for clients with substance abuse issues.
- Management of serious mental health issues in FGCs
- Engaging the legal system with FGCs
1.5.14 While the adoption of an ad hoc approach to training may have been appropriate during the respective periods when FGDM emerged in various jurisdictions, as use of the approach has grown the need for more formal and informal training-oriented structures has also increased due to the volume of training required and demands for the standardisation of training and institution of best practice.
1.5.15 Discussing the training of co-ordinators/facilitators in the US, Chandler & Giovannucci (2004) state that a national body, the Family Conference Institute ( FCI), was set up in 1998 to act as a resource for co-ordinating FGCs and training facilitators. Other jurisdictions (e.g. Hawaii) have arranged for their facilitators to be trained by a non-profit organisation. There, potential facilitators must complete 12 hours of orientation, 40 hours of training and co-facilitate five cases before facilitating alone. While no US jurisdictions have required a certificate to undertake such work, Santa Clara County has established training and practice protocols.
1.5.16 In the UK, many of the training programmes current operating are organised by voluntary agencies. As well as running FGCs, providing consultancy services and supplying independent co-ordinators, FRG, Barnardo's and NCH also operate training courses for managers, co-ordinators and advocates. These courses cover subjects such as referring to FGCs, developing a service, promoting children and young people's participation and providing training and support for new practitioners. FRG also provides information about a network of national FGDM groups (one in each UK country) which aim to develop standards, promote the use of FGDM, enhance service user involvement and provide information to the public and practitioners. Alongside this network, an independent network of regional groups has also been developed by practitioners and managers (the Scottish regional and national groups are the same entity). These generally meet around every two months and provide a means of sharing information and ideas about implementation, practice issues, training and peer support. Barnardo's, FRG and NCH also jointly publish a useful document entitled 'Family Group Conferences; Principles and Practice Guidance' which offers basic information about the model, it's constituent principles and their application for both family and social work audiences. In Northern Ireland (Gribben: 2005) the Children's Services Manager and Education Team Leader developed a four-day course for co-ordinators. This aims to challenge worker's attitudes towards family empowerment and equips them with the necessary facilitation skills. Co-ordinators are also shadowed in their first FGC and thereafter may call upon the support of a colleague in more complex cases.
1.5.17 In Scotland, Children 1 st undertake much of the training within projects that they manage and also within associated organisations. Hamilton (2005) reports that Children 1 st has established a FGC Development Unit to promote the use of conferencing across a wide range of fields. In relation to co-ordinators, induction, ongoing training programmes and the re-appraisal of skills are emphasised alongside work and peer support structures designed to alleviate the situational problems faced by singleton workers. Awareness workshops promoting use and knowledge of FGCs among Children 1 st staff are also discussed. However, the literature is unclear as to whether the Unit provides training for external agencies or professional participants. If indeed these are not provided by the Unit, there may be a shortage of local training facilities for non-Children 1 st staff in Scotland, which can hopefully be addressed in the near future.
1.5.18 Although a considerable amount of energy is evidently being expended on FGDM training, there is no coherent body of literature documenting these developments. Hence, while it is possible to identify broad trends in FGDM training and development, specific details (e.g. numbers participating in training, impact of training etc.) are largely absent from the literature. As a result it is hard to identify specific best practice guidelines in relation to this issue other than suggesting that training be responsive, shaped by local contexts and ongoing. However, further efforts to mainstream FGDM may be assisted greatly by instigating further training for referrers and other associated professionals and by clearly demonstrating therein organisational commitment to the model.
Ethnicity
1.5.19 Matching co-ordinators to families in terms of ethnicity has been recognised as another important issue for FGDM, but one which very much depends upon the local context. Obviously, matching is a concern most relevant in urban areas or locations with concentrations of indigenous or ethnic minority families. The advantages associated with co-ordinators sharing the same cultural background as participating families are that they may be better equipped to meet the relevant cultural and family customs, locate extended family members, gain their trust and involve them effectively in proceedings.
1.5.20 The experience of countries with large indigenous populations dominated by colonial government structures differs markedly from that of the UK. FGDM developed from and was designed to meet the needs of such communities and was afterwards applied to white non-indigenous populations. Applying such measures within these different contexts required modifications to the preparation and conferencing procedures (mostly in terms of the meaning and participation of extended family, FGC setting, ceremonial procedures, follow-up etc.). In the UK, a country with its own diverse mix of cultures and ethnicities, similar challenges would also have to be faced. However, experiences of matching in the UK have not always been favourable. Marsh & Crow (1998) state that in the early UK pilots, ethnic minority families sometimes preferred co-ordinators to be of a different ethnic origin because they felt shame and embarrassment when sharing problems with a member of their own community. They concluded that matching on the basis of language was more important than matching on the basis of race. Chand & Thoburn (2005), discussing a range of child and family support services in relation to ethnic minority communities, also argue that the ethnicity of social workers (or co-ordinators in this context) is irrelevant provided that they are respectful, open-minded and culturally sensitive.
1.5.21 Ban (2005) discusses the application of FGCs in the context of indigenous child welfare and placement issues. He argues that if communities are not empowered to resolve their own problems, professional interests and traditional power relations re-emerge, resulting in only token acknowledgement of minority cultures. It is imperative that FGC practitioners gather information about cultures that may be encountered in the community and consult with community leaders and families about how FGDM can meet their cultural needs. This was the approach taken by Waites et al (2004) who, in conducting focus groups with African American, Cherokee and Latino/Hispanic communities in North Carolina, found quite different cultural needs and widely divergent attitudes towards FGDM identified by those groups. Where such diverse ethnic groups co-exist, FGDM projects must recognise differences between communities in the same way they recognise differences between families and strive to adapt their procedures accordingly if they are to succeed in achieving beneficial outcomes across a range of settings.
Preparation
1.5.22 Comprehensive preparation of participants is a cornerstone of best practice. Preparation helps attendees to understand their roles as decision makers, creates an atmosphere of safety and understanding and promotes family leadership (Merkel-Holguin: 2003). The link between the breadth and depth of family preparation and positive outcomes has been demonstrated in a number of evaluations. It has also been argued that thorough preparation of professional contributors may be a significant predictor of positive outcomes.
1.5.23 Preparing for a FGC takes time. Pennell & Burford (2000) state that, in Newfoundland, the average length of time from referral to FGC was three and a half weeks and conferences took around 40 hours to prepare for (because of the complex issues tackled in the project being evaluated). Cashmore & Kiely's (2000) evaluation of the New South Wales pilot puts the average preparation time for each conference at 20.6 hours for facilitators and almost five hours for the project co-ordinator. In the UK and Europe, Marsh & Crow (1998) indicate that FGCs took an average of 22 hours to set up. Sundell & Haeggmann (1999) and Lupton & Stevens (1997) both offer a figure of 23 hours, while Rasmussen & Hansen (2002) provide an average of 29 hours. Nixon et al (2005) state that the average time to prepare and convene a conference was around 16 hours over three weeks. However, they argue that this was dependent upon the number of people involved and the type of conference planned.
1.5.24 While most studies state that families had positive perceptions of FGC preparation, whether even the most diligent preparation can adequately equip families for the often stark reality of a meeting is a moot point. Despite this difficulty, Burford & Pennell (1995) reported high mean satisfaction ratings among family participants in relation to this matter, with perceptions that preparation was adequate scoring highly on the scale they employed (mean 3.86 out of 4). Cashmore & Kiely (2000) also reported that around eighty per cent of family respondents in their New South Wales evaluation felt they were adequately prepared. Murray et al (2001) indicated that the main criticism from families involved in Scottish FGCs was that they were not adequately prepared. On the other hand, Hamilton (2005), also reporting on the Scottish pilots, states that 95% of all participants (families and professionals) stated they had received sufficient information before their meeting. O'Brien's (2002) study of the Irish pilots found rather less positive results; 35% stated they were adequately prepared and a further 35% stating they were only partly prepared. Walton et al (2003), evaluating Utah's FGDM project, also state that around a third of participating families would like to have been better prepared for their FGC. Families suggested a pre-conference meeting with the facilitator to orient them to the purpose of the conference, its voluntary nature and attendance by professionals.
1.5.25 In summary, preparing for FGDM is not a task that can be rushed - a considerable number of hours are required over a moderate length of time. Moreover, the quantity and quality of preparatory work has a profound effect upon the number of attendees, the conference dynamics, the potential for discord, the functionality of the family as a decision-making body, the quality of resources offered and the outcomes of the FGDM process. In order to inform best practice, there must be further examination of what actions must be accomplished prior to a conference taking place, their effect on outcomes and the time period required for optimum preparation.
Expanding the Circle
1.5.26 The principle of expanding the circle, promoting a wide conception of family has been shown as effective. The inclusion of the family is both a necessary precondition of FGDM and also has a part to play in outcomes, maximising the diversity of voices at the conference and broadening the scope of resources that plans may incorporate.
1.5.27 Merkel-Holguin et al (2003) state that virtually every study has shown concerns about poor FGC attendance to be unfounded. If family members are invited and comprehensively prepared they will attend, and often in greater numbers than at other social work decision-making fora. Moreover, FGDM increases attendance by fathers and paternal relatives, whose poor attendance at traditional child welfare decision-making meetings has been criticised in the past. Murray et al (2001) report attendance by between three and eleven family members or friends at Scottish FGCs. Hamilton (2005) reports an average of five or six family attendees (most participants also thought that the right people were present (86%) and that nobody was missing from the meeting (59%)). The Washington FGDM scheme (Shore et al: 2001) was particularly successful at involving extended family, with an average of five maternal and three paternal relatives attending. Marsh & Crow (1998), reviewing evidence from evaluations in New Zealand and Australia, state that the average number of family members present was six. In their own research on the UK pilots, an average of seven family members were invited to meetings (84% said the right people were invited) and six family members did attend. Parents were present at 96% of meetings (fathers refused to attend 22% of FGCs, mothers refused to attend 9%), which is higher than in traditional UK social work meetings. Furthermore, they argue that research suggests FGDM is successful in engaging and securing high attendance among families with poor relations with social services.
1.5.28 Merkel-Holguin et al (2003) point out that achieving the appropriate balance between families and professionals is essential. Jackson & Morris (1999) state that, in the Hampshire pilot, professionals equalled and in some cases outnumbered family members. However, among the UK pilots as a whole, Marsh & Crow (1998) found that an average of 2 professionals (most of whom were from social services) attended. Although this creates a healthy professional to family ratio of 2:6, it was also noted that many professionals were invited to attend as information givers but did not do so. Hamilton (2005) reports that in the Scottish FGCs, an average professional to family ratio of 3:5.5 existed. In Canada, Burford & Pennell (1995) found an average professional to family ratio of 2:5.1. Evidence from New Zealand (Marsh & Crow: 1998) shows that around three or four professionals regularly attended FGCs, while Roujanavong (2005) states that a minimum of around four professionals attended Thai conferences. Although these schemes experienced higher professional attendance than in the UK, both were juvenile justice applications of the model, which may necessitate the presence of other professionals. Overall, then it appears that, numerically at least, FGCs are weighted towards family members, as befits their purpose as a mechanism of empowerment.
1.5.29 In summary, the literature strongly suggests that effective preparation can optimise family and professional attendance. If the principle of extending the circle is adhered to, FGDM can be more effective than traditional decision-making forums at involving extended family members (particularly paternal relatives) and promoting a wide range of potential welfare resources. Extending the circle also entails rebalancing the professional to family attendance ratio to ensure that all relevant agencies are represented without stifling the voice and decision-making potential of families.
Monitoring
1.5.30 The FGDM process may involve a monitoring element intended as a means of overseeing the execution of a plan agreed during the meeting. Monitoring may be undertaken by a family member or a professional and can be more or less structured, depending upon the needs of the family concerned. At the less stringent end of the monitoring spectrum, a family member would be the designated monitor and would simply report any significant deviations from the agreed plan to an external agency. More stringent procedures could involve regular meetings between the family and an appointed professional, formal reviews etc.
1.5.31 Ascertaining the relative frequency of different monitoring techniques is not possible using the existing literature, which tends to be quite vague in relation to this issue. A notable exception is Marsh & Crow's (1998) evaluation, which states that monitoring was undertaken by the social work department in 67 of the 80 cases they studied (monitoring was undertaken by the family or school in the remaining cases). Reviews were also arranged at six FGCs, all of which resulted in further plans being agreed. However, 14% of plans did not specify monitoring arrangements. Lupton & Nixon (1999) state that there was considerable uncertainty over the extent and consistency of monitoring in the FGCs they evaluated. However, they state that UK evidence suggests variation in the practice of convening reviews or identifying who should undertake monitoring. This ambiguity mirrors the situation in New Zealand, where the literature has also identified monitoring and review arrangements as problematic.
1.5.32 Instituting concrete monitoring arrangements may be beneficial at any stage. Cashmore & Kiely (2000) argue that the decision, midway through the pilot, to schedule review meetings in order to monitor plans and outcomes made a crucial contribution to the successful implementation of some plans and positive outcomes observed. This was seen as particularly important when there was a change of family circumstances or when the case was transferred to another worker or social work team. However, more research is needed on the extent and impact of monitoring arrangements along with the impact of different types of arrangements in order to reach any firm conclusions on best practice.
The place of FGDM in contemporary social work
1.5.33 An area about which relatively little is known is the process of making decisions to refer families for FGDM. Specifically, what in the eyes of social workers makes FGDM a credible option for families at specific points in their contact with social welfare services? Also, how does FGDM fit alongside other social work processes and interventions? Is there a tendency to use it to address specific types of issues carrying a certain level of risk? Is FGDM used to address all the problems which may be faced by a family or is it used to address discrete issues while other problems are tackled using alternative interventions?
1.5.34 There is little debate in the literature on precisely how FGDM should be employed in social work contexts. Gill et al (2003) argue that FGDM should be used alongside formal decision-making meetings during the permanency planning process. They argue that it is a necessary step in assessing options for placement within the family and acts as a means of disseminating knowledge about family resources. Using the process in this way facilitates more informed decision-making, makes the family feel they have been consulted throughout the process and ensures that external placement is a last resort. However, using FGDM in such a way may deemphasise family empowerment, implying that the model merely constitutes one possible means of information gathering or one component of a wider multi-method approach rather than the means of resolving an issue. Much of the literature (most of it strongly pro- FGDM) contradicts this view, depicting FGDM as a potential stand-alone measure, providing comprehensive solutions to problems.
1.5.35 However, as when using FGDM as stand-alone measure, employing FGDM as a parallel planning component would still help to involve and empower families, demonstrating their ability to make effective decisions. Furthermore, while enhancing family support for social work interventions, utilising FGDM alongside (rather than instead of) other decision-making processes may also help to allay professional concerns regarding disempowerment and the placing of all eggs in the FGDM basket. If ultimate decision-making powers are retained by professionals in some form, the apparent desire among some to restrict the model's use to lower risk cases may lose some of its force.
Summary
1.5.36 The aim of the final section of this literature review was to examine some implementation and practice-related issues from which it may be possible to provide suggestions for best practice. On the recruitment of co-ordinators it was recognised that while most came from a social work, probation or educational background there was no need to restrict appointments to such applicants - other more general mediation/listening/co-ordination skills were similarly valued. Although there was no concrete evidence on the respective efficacy of paid or voluntary co-ordinators affiliated to or independent of schemes (nor the affiliation or non-affiliation of schemes with their main referrers), there is considerable evidence that the independent role of co-ordinators is valued by referrers, co-ordinators and participants alike. Co-ordinator effectiveness and perceptions of FGC success were closely related, indicating the importance of this role and its proper performance.
1.5.37 There is a need for further evidence on the effectiveness of training for co-ordinators and other staff related to the FGC process. The sparse research that exists tends merely to document the content of training courses and their associated institutions, training and induction processes and training needs.
1.5.38 FGCs are potentially upsetting, happy, enlivening or conflictual events which can change the lives of participants. Whether families can ever truly be prepared for such events is debatable, but all possible steps should be taken to ensure they are briefed to the fullest possible extent. Preparation is a cornerstone of FGDM it should not be rushed nor should corners be cut in its delivery. Although it may be possible to provide some guidance as to the average preparation time, such a figure should in no sense be regarded as an optimum figure - the time needed to prepare participants adequately differs according to their needs and the problems they face. Preparation time includes contacting and engaging with both family members and professionals. The evidence suggests that curtailing preparation time will negatively impact upon family attendance, thereby reducing the potential benefits of the process. Time is also needed to give due attention to distinctive cultural considerations and practices.
1.5.39 The ambiguity of monitoring arrangements makes it difficult to collate accurate data on outcomes and may have a negative effect upon plan implementation. Finally, the place of FGDM in contemporary social work practice was discussed, highlighting the dearth of information on how the model is practically utilised. Emphasis on the use of FGDM as a stand-alone measure has resulted in a lack of research into its role within other decision processes and wider social work practice.
« Previous | Contents | Next »