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 yearsā 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 experiences 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 FGC outcomes are very good, my experience of working with different models and approaches led me to view some of the processes as disempowering 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 critically 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 FGCāpartnership working, collaboration and empowerment acknowledged as core to its initial successesāremain 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 vulnerable 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 partnership 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 planning (Harris 2003; Leadbetter 2002; Morris and Shepherd 2000). This conflict is perhaps most evident in the child welfare system as these tensions āaddress but are also constrained by paradoxes in the child protection system about commitments to protecting children and to family autonomyā (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 provincial legislation has been enacted, putting FGC at the forefront of engagement 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). āIndependentā advocacy has become a staple provision in supporting children and young people through a variety of statutory meetings, reviews and conferences where decisions are being made about them and their future (National Childrenās Advocacy Consortium 2012). The role of the independent advocate is to support young people and other vulnerable 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 exclusively by the FGC coordinator (Doolan 2010). In addition, some independent advocates in England and Wales have been encouraged by their agencies to stay in āfamily timeāāthe protected element of the conference process that is assumed to be a family-only decision-making point in the meeting and therefore a āprofessionalā 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.
In a climate of evidence-based practice (EBP) to understand āwhat works with whom, according to whose definition, and under what conditionsā (Marsh et al. 2005: 44) in relation to FGC is never more salient. The EBP criteria provide an initial frame of reference to assess variations in the use of FGC and associated practices.
For example, EBP highlights that the definitions for FGC vary from place to place; for example, in North America, Family Group Conferencing has become Family Group Decision Making (FGDM). Currently these terms are used interchangeably, although, historically, this was not always the case (Morris and Connolly 2012; Heino 2009). FGDM was initially used in a more restrictive manner with a more prescribed participant group than in its current incarnation (McCold 1999; Burford and Pennell 1994). Given the variations in the FGC model, the role of advocate and advocacy is also different within the various models, and its application can vary even within the same broad FGC approach.
My previous research of FGC identified variations between FGC models, and where and how they were deployed in terms of legislation, systems, service user groups and facilitators/coordinators. I therefore used the opportunity of a doctoral research study to explore and assess the variations in approach and effects, with a close focus on whether or not young people were more or less likely to be disempowered through FGC processes. Given the emphasis of the traditional New Zealand (NZ) model in partnership and collaborative working, my hunch was that this model might be a more empowering experience for service users (Adams and Chandler 2004; Gill et al. 2003). I also wondered if the NZ model should be used in all conferences, both welfare and justice (as originally intended), as it might be more likely to foster young peopleās participation in its processes. These aspects of FGC and their fit with social work practice, ethics and values led me to hypothesise about their potential to influence the experiences of the conference participants (Fox 2008, 2009).
My experience of FGC also suggested that variations in advocacy approach could have major implications for the processes and effects of the NZ FGC model used by local authorities, particularly the experiences of young service users. For example, in one local authority, even though the model being deployed was based on the traditional NZ model, a conversation wit...