Family Group Conferencing with Children and Young People: Advocacy Approaches, Variations and Impacts

252 Pages·2018·2.53 MB·English

by  Darrell Fox (auth.)

FFAAMMIILLYY GGRROOUUPP CCOONNFFEERREENNCCIINNGG
WW II TT HH
AA NN DD
AAddvvooccaaccyy AApppprrooaacchheess,, VVaarriiaattiioonnss aanndd IImmppaaccttss
DARRELL FOX
Family Group Conferencing
with Children and Young People
Darrell Fox
Family Group
Conferencing
with Children
and Young People
Advocacy Approaches, Variations
and Impacts
Darrell Fox
University of the Fraser Valley
Abbotsford, BC, Canada
ISBN 978-3-319-71491-2 ISBN 978-3-319-71492-9 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71492-9
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017962429
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Family Group Conference: Models and Processes 9
3 Advocacy 27
4 Literature Review: Current and Developing Research 41
5 Children’s Rights 59
6 Theory: Eco Systems, Resiliency and Social Pedagogy 71
7 Theories of Power: Family Group Conference
and Advocacy Approaches 93
8 Findings Pre-conference: Demographics, Preparation
and Referral and Gatekeeping 121
9 F indings Pre-conference: Evolution of FGC: Division
of Roles, Engagement and Participation 141
v
vi Contents
10 Findings Pre-conference: Questions 155
11 Findings the Conference: Timeframes, Attendance
and Focus, Family Time, the Plan, Follow Up 173
12 Conclusion: Summary, Areas for Future Research
and Implications for Social Work Practice 197
References 221
Index 243
List of Diagrams
Diagram 2.1 Evolution of family group conference models 11
Diagram 3.1 M odels of advocacy (Adapted from the Advocacy
for Action website) 28
Diagram 5.1 Hart (1992) participation ladder 63
vii
1
Introduction
This book is about Family Group Conference (FGC) practice and the
role that advocacy plays as one of its key processes. The intention is to
critically examine if these two areas of practice, often seen as separate
specialist areas of social work, can be effectively combined within the
FGC approach. I will be drawing on a number of years’ experience of
practising these aspects of social work, as both practitioner and manager
of FGC services in the UK and Canada. In addition, I will be applying
the findings of my PhD study that explored the differing approaches to
both FGC, and advocacy within FGC, and how these impacted the expe-
riences of service users and practitioners.
I am a huge proponent for FGC. I have always found the philosophy
that underpins the practice of FGC as one that resonates with my world
view as a social work practitioner. I believe that families (where possible)
should be supported to look after and protect their kin with the assistance
(if required) of statutory services. FGC is an intervention that embodies
holistic democratic processes that establish partnership and collaborative
working between child welfare agencies and families. Therefore, I was
immediately drawn to its potential. However, as a social worker, process,
as well as outcomes, have always been important to me. Therefore, while
© The Author(s) 2018 1
D. Fox, Family Group Conferencing with Children and Young People,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71492-9_1
2 D. Fox
FGC outcomes are very good, my experience of working with different
models and approaches led me to view some of the processes as disem-
powering for the participants involved. It seemed to me that the wish of
practitioners or managers to amend the internal practices of the New
Zealand FGC model (considered the most effective), while seeking to
achieve the same successful outcomes, reflected a concern that was more
managerialist than service user focussed. These efficiencies undermine the
concepts and principles that make the experience empowering, and thus
by default have the potential to make them disempowering.
It is timely to revisit the research and knowledge base of FGC to criti-
cally assess how far we have come and what we have learned. In addition,
we should take time to reflect on whether the intuitive processes of
FGC—partnership working, collaboration and empowerment acknowl-
edged as core to its initial successes—remain as effective in a political
climate which values results over process.
FGCs are widely used in social work across many western countries
particularly focused on interventions with young people, especially where
there are child welfare and youth justice concerns (Fox 2008; Ashley and
Nixon 2007). The FGC process is seen as empowering families to work
in partnership with statutory services addressing these concerns. One of
the core precepts of the intervention (discussed in Chap. 4) is the role of
advocacy in supporting individuals (young people and possibly other vul-
nerable participants) with the aim of ensuring that their voices are heard
in decisions that directly affect them (Dalrymple and Burke 2003; Action
4 Advocacy 2002).
The aims of FGC are varied and at times contradictory, reflecting a
number of theoretical and practical tensions (Frost et al. 2014). For
example, FGC is seen as a voluntary, collaborative, empowering and part-
nership approach to involving families and young people in the statutory
decision-making process. It provides a holistic, problem-solving and
power-devolving intervention in which the aim is for all participants to
have their needs met.
On the other hand, tensions persist as FGCs are also required to meet
the procedural aims of the criminal justice and welfare systems in terms
of addressing recidivism, rehabilitation, protection, assessment and plan-
ning (Harris 2003; Leadbetter 2002; Morris and Shepherd 2000).
Introduction 3
This conflict is perhaps most evident in the child welfare system as these
tensions “address but are also constrained by paradoxes in the child pro-
tection system about commitments to protecting children and to family
autonomy” (Mayer 2009: 10).
Some countries such as New Zealand have legislated for FGC to be the
primary intervention when dealing with concerns that focus on young
people (Morris and Connolly 2012; Doolan 2007). In other places, for
example, the Yukon, and New Brunswick in Canada, territorial and provin-
cial legislation has been enacted, putting FGC at the forefront of engage-
ment with families (Government of New Brunswick 2017; Yukon Health
and Social Services 2013). However, in England and Wales, the use of FGC
is not legislated, but is considered an important process and supported by
policy to encourage its deployment in many situations where potentially life-
changing decisions are made regarding young people (Downs et al. 2008).
FGCs incorporate many core social work principles, and the role of
advocacy is particularly relevant within its processes. The practice
of employing an independent advocate has become the preferred option
of delivering advocacy across England and Wales (Family Rights Group
2009). ‘Independent’ advocacy has become a staple provision in support-
ing children and young people through a variety of statutory meetings,
reviews and conferences where decisions are being made about them and
their future (National Children’s Advocacy Consortium 2012). The role
of the independent advocate is to support young people and other vul-
nerable individuals to ensure that their voices and opinions are heard in
these decisions-making forums.
Using an independent advocate deviates from the traditional FGC
approach used in New Zealand, where both roles are undertaken exclu-
sively by the FGC coordinator (Doolan 2010). In addition, some inde-
pendent advocates in England and Wales have been encouraged by their
agencies to stay in ‘family time’—the protected element of the conference
process that is assumed to be a family-only decision-making point in the
meeting and therefore a ‘professional’ free arena. This is also a variation
from the FGC approach in New Zealand (Adams and Chandler 2004;
Gill et al. 2003). It is clear that practices have evolved, specifically the
division in the role of FGC coordinator and independent advocate, and
that this division could impact young people and their families.