Family Group Conferencing: What is it? What does the practice look like? What are the implementation issues?

Dr Wendy Foote, ACWA

Definition:

•  FGC brings families together, including children and extended family members, with community organisations and agencies to express concerns, problem solve and plan for future action (Huntsman, 2006).

2

Family Group conferencing – Care & Protection jurisdiction

•  FGC is a family–led decision making process that provides the parents, extended family members, the child/young person, child protection workers and service providers with an opportunity to a come together for the purpose of discussing and developing strategies that will protect the safety and well being of the child/young person.

•  Conferences are typically facilitated by a neutral party (facilitators) who ensures that all participants have an opportunity to speak, are listened to and remain focused on the needs of the child/young person.

in addition… •  Improves relationship between the child protection professionals and the family •  culturally appropriate ways of resolving child protection concerns and rebuilds family

ties •  especially where family members have stopped talking to each other

(Chandler & Giovannucci 2009; Olson 2009) (Cited in Boxall, Morgan and Terer 2012)

3

History / FGC and FGDC •  Developed in New Zealand in the 1980s, legislated

New Zealand Children, Young Persons and their Families Act, 1989.

•  Now introduced into every child protection jurisdiction in Australia - Implemented in NSW in 1996, incorporated in the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act in 1998

•  International interest, UK, Canada, USA •  NSW - 2011 FGC pilot project – 4 sites in NSW in response to the recommendations

from the Special Inquiry into Child Protection Services in NSW.

•  UC Burnside – implementation 1996 (continuing) (externally evaluated by Cashmore)

•  Barnardos also invested in FGC for a period.

4

Key questions

•  What is the effectiveness of FGC?

in preventing the removal of children at risk of abuse and neglect? Or in preventing re-removal or further reports

•  What family types are more suitable for FGC?

•  What are the implementation issues?

•  What investment/ and resourcing is required to ensure fidelity of the program?

5

Curious?

6

7

The Australian child welfare FGC process consists of three phases:

1.  Preparation 2.  The conference 3. Follow-up

8

The three phases:

1.  Preparation: the convenor invites and explains the purpose of the meeting to family members and professionals.

2. The conference: •  The convenor presents the minimum requirements, professionals give information

about useful programs and resources, and family members ask questions and identify their strengths and weaknesses.

•  Family works privately on plan of action. •  All convene and discuss, agree and ratify plan.

3. Follow-up: the timing, responsibility and procedure to monitor the plan is determined (Huntsman, 2006).

9

The principles of Family Group Conference

•  collaboration between families and community supports; •  respect for the family’s community and culture; •  children’s rights to a voice in decision making and to

safety; •  empowerment of families; and •  - Family Meetings, Family Unity Meetings, Family Care

Meetings and Family Engagement models are also used but usually require a less formal process (Harris, 2008).

•  mobilisation of increased support to the family (Berzin, Cohen et al., 2008).

10

Evidence of effectiveness of Family Group Conferencing ? •  First generation– applied widely without consistency or

robust evaluations •  2009 large scale lit. review - (#1,741published and

unpublished studies) –(Shlonsky) outcomes worse for children who went through the FGC

•  Outcomes in randomly assigned evaluation of FGDM child safety, placement stability and permanence

no better but no worse than the comparison group (Berzin, Cohen et al., 2008) •  Huntsman (2006) lit. review of growing lit. on overall

effectiveness of FGC: both positives and negatives

11

Huntsman (2006) – growing body of evidence

positives – •  high participant satisfaction, more placement with family,

improved communication within families, more respect among families for child protection professionals.

negatives – •  problems ensuring confidentiality, lack of clarity of

procedures including deciding who is to be involved, lack of effective follow-up to implement plans, and a high staff turnover.

12

13

Australian studies

•  Harris (2008) conducted a review of FGC in Australia and found positive outcomes of FGC:

‘greater feelings of empowerment for families’, improved child safety, production of an acceptable plan, and increased ‘informal and formal support’ for families. His review supports the view that FGC is an ‘innovative method for solving child protection concerns’ (Harris, 2008).

Cashmore (1999) external evaluation for UnitingCare Burnside •  because of FGC, many children remained with their parents, •  reduced risk to children, •  a perceived increase in children’s stability.

Patricia Keily (2001) an internal 3-5 year longitudinal evaluation where the reported benefits were that more children were cared for within their kinship group, are kept safe, and obtain more community services. 14

Australian Institute of Criminology Process & Outcome evaluation - 4 NSW pilot sites, 2011 - Key findings

•  Innovative approach in responding to the needs of CYP in care and protection matters in NSW.

•  Engaging the key stakeholders took a number of steps

•  Small scale program, 11 participating CSC’s.

•  Focus on implementation and operation of the program and immediate outcomes for program participants identifying several lessons: #59 referrals – 29 (49% preceded to conference)

•  Good participation and attendance by family members/ almost half were with indigenous families/

15

Process evaluation: •  FGC generally well supported •  Majority of referrals from Metro-central: 63% •  Each CSC referred at least one family Conference attendance – high; •  Mother and child attended in 96% of cases. •  Extended family there 9/10 times. •  ½ indigenous families •  Fidelity – good in the way the conferences were run •  Link to evidence base evidence in the model

16

Unit cost

•  Analysis by performance analysis and evaluation section of FACS – total cost of program: $252,142

•  Cost of conference $8,695

17

Outcome evaluations

•  High satisfaction amongst family members •  Evidence of improved working relationship with

FACS and extended family •  Majority proceeding to conference resulted in a

Family Plan (90%) •  Plans were good – addressed the safety issues;

had clear goals and course of action; reflected best interests of the child.

•  The evaluation time frame - unable to draw conclusions about: re- notification, children’s court applications or frequency/ reliability of contact.

18

Implementation challenges

•  Referrals •  Training – lack of consistent training •  Clear agreement about families who are suitable for referral •  Lacl of clear understanding & agreement about monitoring Family Plans

19

•  2012 Boxall, Morgan & Terer – Evaluation of the FGC pilot

20

What types of families are more suitable for FGC?

21