Innovative uses of Family Group Conferences in Social Work Practice

Friday 23rd September 2016

#mrcsalford

‘Brilliant – Inclusive - no scary solicitors just butties and flapjacks’

Comment from a service user on her experience of an FGC With Thanks to Stockport FGC service

Joe Smeeton

Making Research Count at The University of Salford

#mrcsalford

• National initiative across ten universities in England

• A knowledge broker

• Bringing together academics, practitioners, carers and users to facilitate the dissemination of social care research and theory

• The University of Salford is the regional hub for MRC in Greater Manchester

• Support the learning needs of a range of organisations in the sub-region

Making Research Count (MRC)

#mrcsalford

#mrcsalford

Change to programme

Andrzej Ledochowski

Introduction by Chair

#mrcsalford

Innovation, appropriationor evolution? Professor Kate MorrisUniversity of Sheffield

A trip down memory lane….

Three themes • Innovation: origins in social justice, radical change but in the UK the

innovation had a different hue concerned with a shift in how we understood and framed families

• Appropriation: the weak links to the radical nature of the original drivers saw the rise of FGCs as process management and consultation

• Evolution: Family engagement or a recalibration of our systems and powers? Moving towards new, refined models and fresh approaches to family potential

Originally Innovative…• Social justice mandate and a specific cultural and social context • We imported with insufficient regard to history and context but

with a desire to recognise and work with the expertise of families

AND• Understanding children as relational beings (Ryburn 1996)• Pilots were the only game in town (Tunnard and Morris 1994)• We had process and implementation preoccupations and a

limited number of soul mates…. (Marsh and Crow 1996)BUT • Still generated evidence that families could and did produce

safe plans (Burford et al 2004)

Appropriation • The rise of FGCs as interventions / treatments

• The use of FGCs to gate keep services

• FGCs bolted onto existing systems: tokens of partnership to meet requirements of guidance

• FGCs as a targeted solution to particular needs – projects with limited influence

• FGC practices (the use of questions, criteria for access, process positioning)

Evolution (with a bit of revolution)

• FGCs as the engine room for wider change • Starting with needs not models (domestic violence, gangs,

marginalised communities)• Locating the model in wider change (restorative approaches,

families as valued partners)• Changing the prevailing practice cultures – FGCs as a result of

change programmes not always a driver • Cascading the learning into other professional systems and

practices (restorative meetings, family finding)• The confidence to develop new models for practice drawing

on principles

Current emerging ‘green shoots’

• Evidence of change in practice cultures and preoccupations that surround ‘projects’

• New models of family involvement that reflect the cultural and social context

• Practitioners building on growing confidence in practice knowledge, skills and capacity

• Steady empirical evidence that indicates growth need not result in diminished outcomes

• A revival in the desire to practice differently and a recognition of the limits of child rescue models and risk saturated systems

How do we understand what we are doing?

Braithwaite, Burford, Connelly, Morris and Marsh have all successively argued that:

• FGCs are not an intervention to measured• Evaluation methods struggle to engage with

rights based practice • Child level outcomes reveal only part of a

picture• The near absence of family led service

development and assessment limits the reach of FGDM in the UK

High support – so here’s the high challenge…..• Families not households and mothers…..

• Families as architects not better informed recipients

• Practices that engage with the lived realties of families (austerity, poverty and deprivation)

• ‘Learning with’ not ‘teaching to’ in the process of change

• Participation and partnership is realised in the context of rights and responsibilities not family management

• The supported rise of family led movements to drive change

• Opportunities to learn from our skilled community of FGC co-ordinators across the range of welfare services

Re visit the roots: • Dr Moana Eruera Maori Advisor, Ministry of Social

Development, New Zealand Government

http://www.download.bham.ac.uk/socsci/podcasts/family-potential/2015-10/moana-eruera.mp3

Refreshments and Networking

Break

Workshops1. FGCs and young people with HSB2. Strengthening Social Worker and Independent

Co-ordinator Relationships3. The FGC - a service user's perspective4. FGCs in a restorative authority5. Resourced FGCs; using FGCs with family

support workers6. Family findings and FGCs

#mrcsalford

Denise Malone and Jill Banks

FGCs in Scotland: New Approaches

#mrcsalford

FAMILY GROUP DECISION MAKING IN EDINBURGH

(FGDM)

A structured process where the family can shape the direction and content of planning and decision making for

their children.

In Edinburgh (FGC) FGDM has been offered by the local authority since 2003 and currently has a team of 13 co-ordinators.

FGC’s for children/YP on the edge of care, Emergency Network Meetings, Extended network searches and Vulnerable Babies........

Journey so far.....

Protection is best achieved by building on the existing strengths of a child’s living environment, rather than expecting miracles from isolated and spasmodic interventions.

(21st Century Review)

What works

‘Interventions which helps mothers to improve their mental health, reduce stress, and increase mentalisation and self-compassion have been shown to improve the attachment and outcomes for their infants’ (Cree 2010; Neff & McGhee 2010)

Vulnerable Babies Service

To Prevent babies becoming Accommodated unnecessarily by –

Keeping babies at home with supports from the wider family

Identifying kinship placements for those babies who cannot safely remain at home

Where no family option exists, to inform permanency

Aims of the service

Set up in February 2014 following increasing concern around the number of babies being accommodated.

FGDM receiving referrals just prior to Delivery Date, or not at all. Concern was babies placed in foster care without family consideration or limited exploration of family

The Gate Keeping of referrals was concerning Family not being seen as committed/making contact and

therefore discounted Negative, fixed views of family members, i.e. Seen as

collusive, or ruled out because of historical records

Background to the service

Develop a system where all families

involved were given the same opportunities to

be involved in the decision making

Have referrals as early as possible before the child’s

birth to allow time for family

plans to be developed

Allow time for information

gathering which can add to social work assessment

Work within the overarching

principle that every child has

the right to have his/her family

involved in decisions

affecting his/her life where safe to

do so

What we wanted to do……

Since the VB service was introduced we have had 106 referrals to date;

We have held 70 family meetings where the family have offered support to the parents to keep baby at home or kinship placements - out of the 70 babies 6 have went to kinship placements;

11 referrals did not progress; 9 cases made plans during the preparation stage; 4 babies were accommodated/permanence 12 cases are ongoing.......

The outcomes

Unborn baby M – preparation for FGDM provided a solution; Never managed a family meeting as the baby was born prematurely however, during preparation stage the parents identified an Aunt to care for the baby. If there had been no FGDM involvement this baby would have come into Foster care at birth.

Unborn baby G – in this case social worker was clear that this baby was going straight to Foster care at birth. At the family meeting the family made such a protective plan, and a back up plan of kinship that the social worker was reassured that the baby could safely go home. The social worker said that the family meeting diverted the baby from care.

Unborn baby A – A late referral to the team which came through Family based care because the social worker wanted the baby removed at birth due to mum’s severe mental health problems. At the family meeting it was agreed that the baby could go home with mum to live with Gran and the wider family would support this arrangement.

Case stories

How it Evolved:

Balance of Care Agenda Pressure on resources Pressure on Social Work Practice Teams Better Outcomes for children and young people

FGDM had been responding to emergencies and crises and developed the ENM service to be able to respond quickly

Emergency Network Meetings

How do ENM’s work?

Response is immediate. Aim to hold a meeting within 7 days Family Meeting/Shuttle Diplomacy Views of the Child Referrals: Notifications from – Family Based Care Edinburgh Families Project Young People’s Centres

Resource panels

Process

Clarity about the:

Issues/concerns/risks/vulnerabilities & strengths Legal status Bottom lines- what cannot happen Practical Family/Professionals Information Advocates

Key Factors

14 Year Old Polish female Allegation of Physical Abuse Initial Referral Discussion Accommodated on emergency basis Referral to ENM Identified Family Friend Meeting held Outcome – successful placement within child’s

network

Case study

Comparison

Placement at Referral Placement at close

kinship28%

at home34%

Foster care29%

YPC9%

secure1%

kinship21%

at home 55%

foster13%

YPC10%

agency foster1%

126 children referred for an ENM between Oct 2014 & Jan 2016. All had been referred to Family Based Care for immediate accommodation or admitted to care on an emergency basis.

71% of children and young people referred were maintained at home or placed with family and these placements have continued after 6 months.

12 children were placed in foster care from two families but due to CP concerns and ongoing investigations it was not safe to proceed with an ENM

On 2 occasions kinship placements were indentified but no assessment of these placements was completed as practice team felt that they lived too far way.

Outcomes

City of Edinburgh Council

‘Every Child has a family and they can be found if we try’

Family Finding and extended Networks

alistair

Alistair GawActing Executive Director Communities & Families

Frankie

Andy

Mandy

Isaac

Lawrence

Yarik

Frankie Andy Mandy Isaac Lawrence Yarik

Part 12 of the Children & Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 sets out duties for the Local Authorities to offer relevant services for C & YP who are at risk of accommodation and eligible pregnant woman; relevant services are defined as Family decision making and parenting support.

Continue to develop our service in order to meet the children & Young People within the City of Edinburgh

Develop service users groups and their role in FGDM both for family members and professionals

Explore and develop FGDM in Health & Social Care.......’cradle to grave’

What next.....

‘Every Child has a family and they can be found if we try’

Marsh, P & Crow, G (1998) Family Group Conference in Child Welfare. Oxford, Blackwell Science

Children 1st (2007) Ask the Family – National Standards to support family led decision making and family group conferences in Scotland, Edinburgh Children 1st

Barnsdale, L & Walker, M (2007) Examining the use and impact of Family Group ConferencingOnline@ http://www.scotland.gov.uk/resource/doc/172475/0048191.pdf

Morris, K & Shepherd, C (Chp 5) ‘FGC in a changing context’ from Kenshal, H & Littlechild, R. Involvement and Participation in Social Care, Research and Informing Practice. Jessica Kingsley , London

Ashley, C & Nixon, P (Eds) (Chp 1) ‘FGC in a changing context’ from Family Rights Group (2007) Family Group Conferences, Where Next?

Merkel-Holguin, L (Chp9) ‘Family Group Conferencing’, from Walton, E, Sandga-Becker, P & Mannes, M(Eds) Balancing Family Centred Services with Child Well-being (2001) Columbia University, NY

Further Reading

Implementing family group conferencing in South China

Salford: Sept 23rd 2016

Dr Louise BrownUniversity of Bath

‘Foundling wheels’ to ‘Baby hatches’’

Building a child protection system in China

- 1991 China joined Convention of the Rights of the Child- 1991 Protection of Minors Law- Series of policies that tackled health, education and

financial security;- Relief and protection organisations for street children;- National Plan of Action for Human Trafficking;- 2011: Outline of the Program for Chinese Children’s

development (2012-2020);- MOCA established 99 CP pilot projects;- 2014 Transfer of guardianship legislation introduced;- 2016:Department of Child Protection at national level;- Have laws but no specific provisions for implementing

them – no reporting mechanism and which dept is responsible?

Child protection in China

- China has 280 million children;- the number of migrant children and left-behind children is

35.81 million and 69.73 million respectively (Unicef, 2015). - Violence against children hidden and seen as a ‘private

issue’; - Loss of ‘hukou’ – official registration enabling access to

public benefits; - Growing public and media pressure to examine child

abuse - ‘Maltreatment is a common experience for Chinese children’ (Fang et al. 2015: 10);

- Increasing pressure caused by parental mental health, drug and alcohol misuse and homelessness;

- Zero tolerance towards sex offenders.

Guangzhou, Southern China

• Heart of the textile manufacturing area of China;• High numbers of migrant worker families;• Prevalence of child maltreatment that matches

other countries;• No legal framework to intervene;• Liberal minded city open to experimentation and

considered pioneering;• No formal services;• Social workers acknowledge growing problem

of child abuse;• Request for training.

Sowing the seeds of innovation: developing local solutions to tackle child maltreatment in China

• To develop a locally-based model of practice to support children in need or at-risk;

• To deliver training, and educate professionals in the prevalence of child maltreatment and signs and symptoms of abuse;

• To introduce & train facilitators and pilot a locally-developed Chinese version of Family Group Conferencing;

• To set up a referral mechanism where child maltreatment is suspected;

• To evaluate the process and outcomes of FGCs;• To identify the potential to scale-up the innovation in China.

Scaling-up:two different approaches

1.Fidelity: ‘copy and paste’/’ blueprint’ (manuals, licensing, accreditation)Examples:

MULTISYSTEMIC THERAPY: developed in the US, a family intervention to tackle youth at-risk of offending, drug abuse, neglect, school failure, etc. A carefully manualized intervention. The Incredible Years. developed in the US, transferred to the UK. An early intervention program aims to improve family interaction and prevent persistent antisocial behaviour in children. Nurse-Family Partnership programme: US to the UK

Findings: two different approaches

2. Adaptation.Move in other fields towards breaking interventions down

into key components or characteristic's of effective programs, which allows adopters to be flexible and ‘adapt’ confidently.

Counselling for Alcohol Problems (CAP): transferred from UK to India.

Family Group Conferencing. Model for working with families that challenges ‘experts’ and empowers family members to make decisions about their children.

• Held public meetings and consultation exercises;• Closed-door seminar with reps from Youth League, local

professional organisation of social work, Save the Children, NGOs specialised in youth service, social work educators and volunteers (e.g. lawyers and journalists);

• Identified their concerns;• Flew a trainer over from FRG;• Ran a ‘development workshop’ with 8 social workers (and

two managers) from two NGOS and a supervisor from Hong Kong to consider cultural adaptation;

• Trained 8 SWs in FGDM model;• Devised referral criteria;• Trained a Research Assistant in the use of the evaluation

tools;• Launched April 1st 2014.

Implementation process

Their concerns

Would Chinese families be reluctant to get involved and not be prepared to discuss their problems with a wider network of family and friends?

Would the absence of a legal mandate for social workers to intervene in family life result in the failure of the model?

Whether social workers had the skills and capacity required to deliver the model?

Was it too soon for China?

My concerns & responses

- How to keep children safe in the process; - How to ensure children did not become blamed for issues

being raised;

- Low level risk cases;- Only children over 8 years;- Avoided referrals about education;- Referral criteria: where there was parental mental health

illness or parental addiction (drugs, alcohol, gambling) which was impacting on parenting capacity.

- Trained ‘coordinators’ to re-frame the issues so always defined as child’s needs;

14 year old boy with learning difficulties. His mother had left the family home when he was very young, he lived with his father and grandparents.

- His father had learning difficulties, his grandfather had dementia and his grandmother was losing her mobility due to rheumatism.

- Referred by school social worker following concerns that the boy could not care for himself and the adults in the family were increasingly unable to meet his needs.

- Five family members and the boy attended the FGDM and a family plan was written in which each family member agreed to teach the boy specific tasks around the house such as bathing, laundry and cleaning.

- When the co-ordinator revisited the family six months later, the aunt reported a significant improvement in the capacity of the boy to care for himself.

Case 1

A 10 year-old girl. - Her parents had divorced and left the city leaving her

to live with her grandparents and two uncles.

- The referrer was concerned that the girl was suffering neglect, arriving in school unkempt, dirty and with head lice. As a result she was struggling to form friendships and was becoming socially isolated.

- The family members did not all turn up for the FGDM and during the meeting the grandfather left too.

- A plan was not developed but the social work agency were able to put support in.

Case 2

A 16 year old young man who lived with his parents, grandparents and sister. - His parents were both Deaf and without speech. - The grandfather, age 83 years was the primary carer

and the grandmother had severe mental health issues. - The school social worker referred due to concerns about

the capacity of all adults in the family to provide sufficient care and the boy becoming socially isolated.

- The social worker invited three volunteers to join the meeting with the boy, his parents, grandfather and sister.

- A family plan was developed which included the volunteers visiting the home weekly providing help with homework and taking the boy out socially.

Case 3

A 3year old and 16 year old girl living with her mother. Older girl resided at school during the week. The children’s father had committed suicide after the death of their eldest son from cancer. - Mum was a single parent struggling to manage a part-time cleaning

job to supplement a small state benefit. She was also primary carer for her 90 year old mother-in-law. The mother had also been diagnosed with cancer and needed the job to pay for her medicine.

- In order to go to work she was leaving the 3 year old at home alone tied to a table with rope to keep her safe.

- The mother, an aunt, another relative and a sponsor. A plan was agreed which involved the sponsor paying the relative to look after the 3 year old whilst the mother was at work. The aunt agreed to cover the shift if the relative could not make it. The plan was very detailed and specified the requirements of the childcare that was to be provided by both the mother and relative.

Case 4

Findings after 12 months

Barriers- Slow take-up- Reluctance of families (stigma)- Social work resistance- Social workers knowledge and understanding of the model- Relationship between social workers and families critical- Lack of legal mandates to intervene- Priority in agency- Blocking by managers

Findings after 12 months

Opportunities- Role of champions;- Some social workers had confidence to sell the model;- Family networks were big enough;- Were resources in networks not previously identified;- Role of sponsors;- Issues of trust and power important – where social

workers had trusting working relationship already enabled families to come forward;

- Where stigma was an issue social workers had to work hard to overcome that – did achieve it.

Lessons learnt: FGDM in China?

- Can develop FGDMs in China;- Family members did attend and drew up plans;- Did maintain a focus on children;- Did lever resources into the family;- Families reported positive outcomes;• Same barriers and opportunities apply in China as in

other countries with FGC model; • Which cases in which situations might it work with (low

level concerns)?• We still don’t know what cultural differences we need to

take into account or how to manage those?

Lessons learnt

Process of transferring an innovation to China• Adaptation and action research approach important

(name/role of sponsors);• Difficult process to develop a model with such a young

profession;• Blueprint would not have worked (FGC not an alternative in

China);• Timing?• Implementation takes twice as long as you plan;• And twice the resources.

Finally

• Someone needs to keep on top of the implementation process;

• Funding was identified for a second site – by Chinese academic;

• Lowered age range and broadened the referral criteria;

• Two year’s further funding by local govt funding for this social work project where will use FGDM approach;

• We still don’t know if this model is appropriate for China?

Refreshments and Networking

Break

FGCs and The University of SalfordDeanna Edwards and Kate Parkinson

#mrcsalford

d.edwards@salford.ac.ukk.p.parkinson@salford.ac.uk

• Evaluation of FGC Services• The co-ordinator/social worker relationship• FGCs and domestic abuse

https://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2015/jul/23/domestic-violence-family-group-conferences (paper submitted to Child Abuse Review)

• FGCs and young people’s participation

Research Interests

Chapters include:• Policy and legislative context• Theoretical underpinnings of FGCs• Research evidence• Family views of FGCs• FGCs and DVA• FGCs with marginalised communities• FGCs and Harmful Sexual Behaviour • FGCs and young offenders• FGCs and adult social care

Family Group Conferences: A Strengths Based Approach to Social WorkInvolving Families in Decision Making

Panel discussion• Jill Banks• Donna Havill• Andrzej Ledochowski• Denise Malone• Professor Kate Morris• Joe Smeeton (chair)

#mrcsalford

Joe Smeeton

Conference Close

#mrcsalford

Social work, terrorism and risk: working with the Prevent Duty

Dr Tony StanleyChief Social Worker

Birmingham City Council

A shared goal

• Improving community safety • Prevention is important• Intelligence is important• But, political and social realities are messy • The problem gets located into the ‘person’• Radicalisation seen through the ‘psy’ prism• What narratives get rendered in or out?• Young people’s agency and political action?

Social work

• Human rights and social justice ideals (IFSW)• New duty (July 1, 2015) ‘to help prevent’• Lack of debate about our role (Guru, 2012)• Increasing shift from development to ‘fixing up’• Delivering the state agenda

– British values (what does this mean?)– Can we question? Mostly state employees?

• Narrow risk theorising is understandable• Professional scripts v organisational scripts?

Problems for social work

• An individualising has occurred• Absent families / not trusting families • Risk theorising is limited – so is our practice

– Assess, assess, assess + questionable help• Psychologising is promoted (grooming narrative)• Police and social workers = social control

– child protection plans as paternalist tools • Social work lacks debate and innovations to date

Politicised riskAt present, there is a reluctance by the social services to intervene, even when they and the police have clear evidence of what is going on, because it is not clear that the “safeguarding law” would support such action. A child may be taken into care if he or she is being exposed to pornography, or is being abused – but not if the child is being habituated to this utterly bleak and nihilistic view of the world that could lead them to become murderers (Boris Johnson, March 2014).

• As social workers, can we question? • What happens if we do?

Social work needs to find voice:Co-constructions?

How did we get here?

• A decade of hardening rules and procedures • Failure of ICS promise to offer ‘a grip’ on each case • Scandal politics

• Practice reform agenda/ SWTF/ Munro Review– What happens at the frontline today– Narrow definitions of risk shaping practice

• Featherstone et al ‘stop feeding the risk monster’• Forrester ‘zombie social work’• Connolly et al ‘beyond the risk paradigm’

Social work is Risk Work

• The moral endeavour of social work is too important to leave to discursive chance

• Risk permeates social work - a discursive hold • This affects and shapes practice • Communication about risk tends to encourage a

rather narrow thinking • The problem for families is that they are often left

out of the professional meetings and risk discussions where important decisions are made

Discourses of risk

certaintyuncertainty

Helpful ways forward • Sensible risk analysis must precede precautionary actions• Practice approaches can promote justice and rights • Birmingham children’s services: strengths based

– Community safety issue/ community engagement– Family Group Conferencing as a core offer– ‘Signs of Safety’ to work with risk (Stanley & Guru) – Capabilities approach (Gupta, 2016)– Good lives model (Ward, 2014)

• An intellectual endeavour and moral enterprise • Helping is a core social work value

Strengths based approaches

• operating from the strengths based perspective means that “everything you do as a helper will be based on facilitating the discovery and embellishment, exploration, and use of clients’ strengths and resources in the service of helping them achieve their dreams and goals” (Saleeby, 1980)

• The rule of optimism• The role of optimism

Birmingham practice developments

• Families as experts in Child Protection – linking up– Risk as an experience to help others

• FGC as an offer for radicalisation risk work– Risk communication by families privately; risk interruption

• Team managers – systemic supervision, curiosity– Safe uncertainty, the positions of risk expert

• Signs of safety as a practice toolkit– Co-constructing risk with families

• Strengthening families CP conferencing– Actively building in constructionist risk communications