Reimagining child welfare outcomes: Learning from Family Group Conferencing

Abstract

This article reports on a qualitative study, which sought to retrospectively understand the contribution family group conferencing (FGC) makes to longer‐term outcomes for children at risk of entering State care and their families. Eleven case examples of FGC were studied from five local government areas across Scotland. Each example included the perspectives of different stakeholders in the process: children, their parents/carers and extended family (n = 32), and professionals (n = 28) involved with them. The study found a number of interconnecting issues in relation to FGC outcome contribution. First, the personal experience of process matters to the service user and his/her opinion of the outcomes they achieve. Second, what professionals do and how they do it can impact the outcomes of people requiring support. Thus, the relationship between professionals and service users is central to understanding why and how families achieve longer‐term outcomes. Finally, who defines outcomes and to what purpose is significant when understanding outcomes. This article reports on two sets of FGC outcomes identified within the study: personal and professional. Arguing for a more nuanced understanding of outcomes in child welfare this article begins to explore, and challenge, the manner in which outcomes are identified and valued in child welfare.

‘Because I'm a kid …’: The struggle for recognition of children and young people involved in child and family social work

“…It was while interviewing young people for this research project that respondents also discussed their experiences of social work more generally, and it is this evidence that this paper explores. As such, while the research focused on FGC discussion in this paper does not explicitly link or make conclusions about the FGC process for young people and adult family members-this is done elsewhere (see Mitchell, 2019Mitchell, , 2021.…”

“…Please note, while the focus of the research was Family Group Conferencing this paper is wider—exploring children and young people's experience of social work rather than discussing the FGC process itself. Findings from original study on outcomes for children at risk of being accommodated by the state and family members involved in Family Group Conferencing are published elsewhere (see Mitchell, 2019; Mitchell, 2021). Key concepts of partnership and recognition in social work practice are discussed before summarizing the research methodology and limitations.…”

“…2 2 As pointed out in Mitchell (2019) each case of FGC studied involved professionals as well as the extended family, as such each is identified as an FGC ‘pod’ (Ney et al, 2013)…”

Adverse Childhood Experiences and Social Work: Relationship-based Practice Responses

“…Since the beginning of the profession, the relationships between social workers and service users have been seen to be at the centre of good social work practice (Trevithick, 2003). The relationship component of social work has been described by seminal figures as the 'soul' (Biestek, 1957), the 'heart ' (Perlman (1979), and the 'major determinant' (Hollis, 1970) of practice (Coady, 1993, p. 291), with contemporary authors also noting its key underlying role (Bryan et al, 2016;Colleagues and Authors own, 2019;Hood et al, 2019;Mitchell, 2020). Social work relationships are in fact both multifaceted and multiple 'with individuals, between individuals, with individuals in groups, with individuals and organisations, and between organisations' (O' Leary et al, 2013, p. 136).…”

“…For example, in one study examining the social worker's ability to make and sustain relationships both with parents and with their children it was observed that: '… it was their relationship with their particular social worker that parents were to return to again and again during the course of interviews' (Author's own and colleague (2004, p. 217). Research has identified the core qualities that service users value in social workers that assist positive relationship development; these include, reliability, honesty, respect, effective communication and recognition of their innate worth and position (Devaney and Dolan, 2017;Drake, 1994;Mitchell, 2020;Platt, 2012;Toros et al, 2018;Trevithick, 2003). The ability to treat the service user as an individual person in their own right (Turney, 2012), as 'unique' rather than as a case or a number (Drake, 1994, p. 601), or than simply as a member of a category (Dybicz, 2012), also being regarded as essential.…”