It is a remarkable statement of intent that the first section of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill focuses on family group decision making (FGDM), and there is palpable excitement about the ‘once in a lifetime opportunity’ this element of the Bill presents.
These observations were made by Directors of Children’s Services (DCS), experienced in leading local authorities towards authentic partnership working with families, who joined the roundtable convened by Family Rights Group (FRG) on 10 January. The discussion brought together around 40 people, including DCSs, family members with direct experience of child protection services, advocates, activists, and academics, who between them have probably dedicated centuries to leading national and local culture change towards genuine partnership working in child safeguarding and protection.
The fact that the new legislation does not currently include a clear definition of FGDM or its core principles could inadvertently undermine its intent or impact. The shared commitment arising from the meeting was to do all we can to ensure the opportunities arising from this important Bill are realised.
We heard first-hand about how, without such clarity, loosely conceived family led meetings can easily become subsumed by dominant, professionally led processes and systems. The result can be that the intended radical shift to rights-based working (as family-led decision making can be in its most potent form), becomes yet another professional-led process, indistinguishable from the plethora of meetings a family may be requested or required to join.
Dr Louise Hill (Head of Policy, Evidence and Impact at Children First, Scotland) spoke of the ‘massive risk’ posed by legislation that lacks officially endorsed definitions and principles. Progress has been made in some areas of Scotland, and there is a reference to family group decision-making in legislation through the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014.
However, this is not clearly defined and as a result Children First and partners are working to strengthen the law so that this becomes a genuine entitlement across the country. Concerns about dilution and lack of clarity were echoed by colleagues involved in professional development around FGDM in England who spoke, for instance, about children routinely not being included in ‘family network meetings’.
Paul Nixon is former Chief Social Worker in Aotearoa/New Zealand where Family Group Conference (FGC) practice originated and is enshrined in law. He reminded the group that the commitment in to FGDM in the Bill is underpinned by the growing body of evidence on family group conferences, in particular Coram’s Randomised Control Trial conducted by Coram in England which is to date the largest RCT of FGCs carried out in the world.
The point here is not about advocating or endorsing a single ‘model’ for family led decision making. It is about engaging with the best available evidence nationally and internationally. From this evidence base, Family Rights Group have distilled and codified quality standards that are offered freely and provide foundation upon which statutory principles and guidance might be developed.
Enabling family-led decision making goes far beyond a single conference or meeting, and the changes required within services striving to work in trust with wider family can represent a significant shift in organisational culture.
Setting out families’ legal entitlements to partnership working and power sharing can raise real anxieties for staff. It's quite easy to speak of working in partnership but this can prove challenging in practice, especially when engaging with families who may not easily trust professionals, in situations where conflict and violence may pertain and where there is concern about the safety of children.
However, as Paul Nixon underlined, the Bill offers ‘a unique opportunity to restate the core values of social work’, which require us to share power, to acknowledge that the state doesn’t have all the answers and that in fact, state intervention can sometimes do more harm than good.
Organisational commitment, staff development and sustained, proactive leadership are vital to enabling family-led decision making. Those doing this work can see the impact on ‘the system’, on the initial distrust of practitioners, on the exclusionary jargon and paternalistic practices that exclude those at the centre of professional attention, and on the numbers of children who are requiring statutory intervention to keep them safe and well.
The evidence from colleagues on ‘the ground’ is that these essential enablers are often diluted when family meetings are convened in undefined ways. An ill-defined commitment – however well intentioned – won’t provide the impetus to build on the work that is showing compelling results in local areas where FGCs are offered as an entitlement to families early in their involvement with child and family services. Official definitions and principles will be essential to providing the framework for this cultural shift.
As Dez Holmes, Director of Research in Practice and Strategic Director, Practice and Programmes at NCB sums it up:
'It is entirely right that local areas have flexibility to adapt to local context, and it is not the role of national government to dictate operational working practices in most instances. However, where the best available evidence is clearly showing there are key components, processes and principles that are necessary for achieving the intended aims of family engagement and empowerment, then the national steer needs to reflect this. We owe the sector, and the families they serve, this.'
Dez Holmes, Director of Research in Practice and Strategic Director, Practice and Programmes at NCB
Colleagues at all levels who are striving for this values-led approach deserve to be supported by evidence-led legislation. Let’s maximise the opportunity this Bill offers to children, young people, their families and the professionals working in partnership with them to keep children safe and well.
