Professional Social Work • August 2010

family group conferences20

Power to the family

Andrew Papworth explains the process involved in establishingfamily group conferences for families to be supported in addressing their problems, pinpointing the benefits in improved esteem and outcomes for children and young people

reluctant to use them and illustrates problemsabout their recent growth. Referrals and thenumber of conferences held have grown everyyear. The conferences are organised by a pool ofindependent self-employed co-ordinators whoare effectively commissioned for each FGC theytake on. Although independent – and socompletely outside any other decision makingprocesses – they work to a set of standardsestablished by the Service.

Consultation is available through their peersupervision and from the manager of theCamden service. The pool now has 15 co-ordinators of 11 different cultural backgroundsand offering 11 different languages –conferences can be held in the first language ofthe family, with any translating provided foragency professionals. Many co-ordinators havebeen with the pool since its inception in 2001.

The Camden service was evaluated byBirmingham University (Kate Morris) in 2007,

with the first analysis looking at 116 familyplans covering 205 children. This was followedby retrospective enquiries into what hadhappened to a sample of 43 of these childrenapproximately one year later. A look at thereasons for referral showed that almost onethird were of a child protection nature andalmost another third were classed as children inneed, including those at risk of accommodat-ion. Almost 10% were the subject of careproceedings, evidence that referrals have beentypically for ‘heavy end’ cases.

Among the sample of children approximatelyone year after their FGC, only three of the 15who had been on the Child Protection Registerwere still on this list. Of the nine children whohad been subject to care orders or interim careorders, just two remained in a similar position,while eight previously accommodated childrenwere no longer in care. The number of childrenin a kinship care placement had increased fromone to six and the number living with theirparents had increased from 26 to 31. Just 19 ofthe 43 FGC cases were still open.

The growth in referrals has shown thatmanagers and social workers in Camden havebeen increasingly keen to refer to the service,with evaluations from them and otherprofessionals having been overwhelminglypositive, almost as much as evaluations fromfamily members – 78% of agency professionalsthought that the FGC made a difference to theoutcome of the children compared with otherways of working with families.

My experience in working with several localauthorities as a co-ordinator and then as aproject manager and a trainer has led me to talkwith many social workers. Whilst some have

LETTING FAMILIES OFCHILDREN IN ACUTENEED COME UPWITH SOLUTIONS TOPROBLEMS HASALWAYS PRESENTEDA CHALLENGE TOMANY SOCIALWORKERS

amily group conferences (FGCs)have not had an easy start in theUK, but the past two years hasseen a dramatic rise in their use.A report in November 2009 by

the Family Rights Group (FRG) and Universityof Birmingham suggested that 69% of localauthorities are now offering them.

They were first introduced 15 years ago bysocial workers in Hampshire who had observedthe model’s success in New Zealand, whereMaori people had been using its principles foryears. In 1989 it was enshrined in the country’slegislation, following soul-searching by thesocial work profession in the wake of the failureof institutional and mono-cultural practice tosupport Maori families. Results from its use inthe UK, in Hampshire and in the few otherauthorities which started using it more than adecade ago, were similarly impressive.

The concept of letting the families ofchildren in acute need come up with solutionsto their problems has always presented achallenge to many social workers and togovernment. Evidence from the FRG/Universityof Birmingham study [Report on the impact ofthe Public Law Outline on Family GroupConference services in England & Wales] showshow for too long their use was restricted toabout one third of local authorities, and manyof these regarded it as something to be usedonly on a limited scale. More recently, however,guidance from central government hasencouraged the use of FGCs.

Camden Borough Council’s Family GroupConference Service celebrated its tenthanniversary in March this year. Its success bothquestions why some authorities are still

F

p020-022 - PSW August 10_PSW_templates 22/07/2010 10:51 Page 20

been wholehearted in their enthusiasm, othersare more cautious and some find the principlesof FGCs hard to accept. The model is based onthe family – with input from the child –deciding on the plan, with the requirement thatthe department and the social worker acceptand implement that plan, provided it does notplace the child at risk. For some social workers,and for their employing authorities, chargedfirst with assessing needs and then planningcare, seeing such a transfer of power to thefamily (even with the proviso that unsafe planscan be vetoed) can prove difficult.

EmpoweredIt requires working in a different way. It notonly means acceptance of families and childrenbeing empowered, it actually values that as aprinciple. It means meaningful partnership withservice users. It is a return to some basic valuesin social work, reflected in BASW’s Code ofEthics for Social Work, such as its concern withsocial justice: ‘Support anti-oppressive andempowering policies and practices and to assistindividuals, families, groups and communitiesin the pursuit and achievement of equitableaccess to social, economic and politicalresources and attaining self-fulfilment, self-

21

management and social well being.’The role of the social worker in an FGC,

once they have offered the family a conference,and the family have accepted, is as follows:

1) to make a referral; 2) to provide clearfactual information to the family about theirconcerns and to answer questions about this; 3)advise the family of possible resources; 4)respond to the family’s plan, seeking anynecessary clarification before either agreeing itand the resources it requires, or stating it isunacceptable because it puts the child at risk; 5)ensuring implementation of the part of the planthey are responsible for; 6) providing supportto the family. Generally it will be important thatthe social worker has prepared a thoroughassessment of the child’s situation and needs.

Social workers and agencies can appreciateand refer for FGCs for several reasons. Theymay value the principles on which they arebased, or they may be more pragmatic andrealise that they are an efficient way of comingup with a plan, and that the plans are oftenmore sustainable than plans made by otherroutes. If the child is to be the subject of careproceedings, then FGCs can do invaluableplanning, and courts have shown enthusiasticappreciation of FGCs.

The more pragmatic social workers may tryto influence the outcome of the FGC byencouraging a particular outcome, orsuggesting certain resources. Yet experiencesuggests that it is because families and childrenperceive a genuine shift in the power balanceand a real opportunity to plan (done in privatefamily time without the co-ordinator or agencystaff present) that this approoach is able towork. As such, tampering with the modelweakens it.

AdvocatesFGCs are focussed on the child and theirfuture. They try to ensure that the child’s voiceis heard, and children are offered an advocate orsupport person who can support them in theprocess, helping them work out what they wantto say and how to say it – as well as how muchthey want to be involved in the FGC itself.Children can choose an advocate they know ordecide to have someone independent.

Last year a Finnish report was published,titled Family Group Conferences from a ChildPerspective, which looked at children’sexperiences of FGCs in Denmark, Norway,Sweden, Finland and Iceland. A team ofresearchers interviewed children (aged 7-14)before and twice after their FGC.

The report stated: ‘The changes experiencedby children were mostly for the better. TheNordic children pointed out similar life issuesthat they wanted to see changed: relations withand between the parents; the situation at homeand with friends and peers; [and issues]connected to everyday circumstances (school,work, free time) but also connected to theidentity and self. The most important issue forthe children seemed to be that their biggestworries had decreased. This seemed toinfluence other things and areas of [their] life –including those areas not mentioned in thequestions formulated for the FGC to solve.

It often happened that the dimensions thatthe children considered the most importantwere seen by adults as being of minorimportance, if not totally invisible.’

The report noted how the work of the co-ordinator is crucial, that the children said theyfelt more of a participant than in traditionalmeetings and that they felt that they had beenlistened to better. It also found that meetingswere generally child focused – where there wasa support person this helped – and urged thatchildren are consulted about questions theywant addressed at the FGC and that socialworkers are clear with them beforehand.

Some social workers with responsibility forlooked-after children can find empoweringchildren difficult: they are aware that thechildren and young people sometimes say far

family group conferences August 2010 • Professional Social Work

p020-022 - PSW August 10_PSW_templates 22/07/2010 10:51 Page 21

Professional Social Work • August 2010

family group conferences22

more to their families than to them. However, ayoung respondent from a Camden FGC userevent said of the approach: “FGCs gave me avoice, to be able to express my views. It gaveother family members a chance to come upwith advice and support.”

Before my involvement with FGCs I workedfor some 25-years as a social worker and teammanager with children and families. I becameaware of the seeming alienation of a majority ofthe individuals and families which theauthorities I worked for sought to engage.There was often a distrust of the authority,frequently extended to its staff. This included abelief that “the welfare” was an agency not tobe trusted because it would quickly resort tocriticism and to removing children. There wasalso a view that the authority was abureaucracy which was inefficient, lacking incare and which had a level of power that itwould abuse.

I was also aware of staff who weretremendously committed and compassionate

and who went the ‘extra mile’ for the familiesthey worked with. This may well have helpedwith the quality of the relationship betweenthem and the families but this nonetheless didlittle to change the way the families viewed theauthority. The resulting climate of low trust wasnot productive for creating robust solutions tothe problems identified.

The advent of the 1989 Children Act, with itsemphasis on valuing family life and onpartnership with service users, instanced by therequirement to make written agreements withthem, offered an exciting opportunity. Yet I wassoon to reflect that the new stress onpartnership made little difference.

FGC is different. The revised power balancewhich FGCs provide and the opportunity forgenuine family decision-making means that thisproblem of family/authority trust is minimised.Although problems can remain (for example,the agency may not deliver what it has agreedto, or it may cancel a promised review) theseshould be avoided if the integrity of the FGCmodel is respected and the manager of theservice and the co-ordinators are willing tomonitor and challenge.

the verge of care proceedings, social workersand co-ordinators have to be balanced: stressthe advantages while making it clear that theydo not have to agree.

So, FGCs are now a major feature of childrenand family work. They are child-focussed butare empowering of the family. They operatewith a clear model and clear principles. It isapparent that it is these which make themattractive to children and families but it is alsothese which do represent a challenge to thesystems which refer people to them. Aconsequent development over the last four orso years has been an awareness of the need toset standards. Hence there are now schemes forthe accreditation of co-ordinators, and the FRGnow has a national scheme with the Universityof Chester for a post-graduate certificate, whileLondon FGC services now offer training andaccreditation via the Open College Network.

Anti-social Developments and expansions of the conceptwithin the Camden service over recent yearstypify what is happening in other places.Restorative Justice (RJ) FGCs were added somefive years ago. Referrals are taken of youngpeople responsible for anti-social behaviour andthe FGC is held in two parts. In the first theyoung person is confronted with the effects oftheir behaviour on others, through theattendance of a ‘victim’, or a representative ofthat person, or a statement from them. Theyoung person and their family then respondand agree a plan to make amends. This workrequires thorough preparation by all partiesbeforehand. This part is followed by a moreconventional FGC, looking at the welfare needsof the young person. FGCs are also beingoffered in schools.

I will close by urging BASW and its membersto endorse FGCs as good practice and in linewith sound social work values. By now the useof FGCs must have led to the periloussituations of thousands of children and youngpeople having a better outcome than theyotherwise would. That must be reasonenough to encourage their wider use. PSW

Also critical is that FGCs throw out achallenge to the family to use their ownresources. It is very normal to find that familieshave contacted each other and discussed manyissues before the FGC. During their privatetime they have to decide how to manage themeeting as well as what plans to make on theirown. This is a sharp contrast to other ways ofworking with families which always involve aprofessional in some capacity. Often theybecome a target of resistance or a focus fordependence. Either way the family transfersblame or responsibility to the professional.

The Finnish review leader Heino stated:“Each private network managed to get theprivate meeting going and to move ahead withit. This forms a kind of a team-building processin practice. The attitude was expressed forexample that, “we are not the professionals inthese matters, but we solve this our own way”.

The enthusiasm of the courts for FGCs,alongside criticism of lengthy, costly andadversarial proceedings would seem to be

behind the Public Law Outline, introduced inApril 2008, which requires local authorities toconsult with the wider family beforeproceedings commence. This has led to amarked increase in the number of referrals forFGCs. It is very welcome that many morefamilies are now being given the opportunity toplan for their children in this way.

However, FGCs, as an empowering practice,are entered into on a voluntary basis, and thePLO has given rise to families being pressuredto hold an FGC. Lawyers and social workerswho do not understand the process can thinkthat a family can be obliged to have an FGCand are sometimes unrealistic about thetimescale for co-ordinating it – they typicallytake six weeks to organise, an efficient way ofworking given all that needs to be done:clarifying the issues, identifying and seeingthe whole family, engaging and talking tochildren, arranging support where appropriateand involving further professionals whererelevant.

Co-ordinators say that FGCs held wherethe family have felt pressured to agree areoften less successful. In talking to families on

Andrew Papworth was previously manager ofthe Camden FGC Service. He has also been asocial worker and independent social worker.He now works as a consultant and trainer.Please email psw@basw.co.uk with any viewsabout this article or to have comments passedon to Andrew.

For more information about the Family RightsGroup, visit www.frg.org.uk

IT’S A SHARP CONTRAST TO OTHER WAYSOF WORKING WITH FAMILIES WHICHINVOLVE A PROFESSIONAL. OFTEN THEYBECOME A TARGET OF RESISTANCE ORFOCUS FOR DEPENDENCE.

p020-022 - PSW August 10_PSW_templates 22/07/2010 10:51 Page 22