A Family Group Conference (FGC) is a family-led decision making approach used in children’s social care. FGCs are widely used in England and there is a growing evidence base for their effectiveness, particularly at the pre-proceeding stage in the UK. Despite this, there is currently no routinely collected data on the extent to which FGCs are offered and taken up by families. Local authorities do not have a standardised system or approach for capturing FGC data and there are various systems and methods for collecting data across children’s services.
Without a method for collecting data on the use of FGCs, it is not possible to know at a national level which families are being offered FGCs, which families accept, and what their outcomes are.
To help address this gap, Foundations commissioned Coram, in partnership with Family Rights Group (FRG), Daybreak, and Data to Insight (D2I), to conduct a project exploring what data on FGCs is currently being collected and what methods are being used to store this data. The report also recommends several options for how this data could be routinely collecting across England to provide a national picture of FGC service provision.
The project had two key aims:
The project took a mixed-methods, multi-disciplinary approach. This included:
In total, 58 professionals were engaged, including FGC service managers, business and administration support, heads of services, data analysts, and FGC coordinators. Interviews were also held with FGC providers, national stakeholders and academics. Consultation workshops were held with local authorities to test the emerging findings and co-develop recommendations and options for a national data collection.
The project found that local authorities recorded a range of data on FGCs including:
Data was recorded using a range of different methods, including children’s services case management systems (CMS) and local authority internal recording systems and spreadsheets. Almost all FGC services also used spreadsheets to record some form of FGC data. There was substantial variation in the quality of FGC data and in data quality assurance processes.
Overall, local authorities were supportive of the introduction of a national standardised, routine data collection on FGCs. Many felt that it could promote FGCs within their local authority as well as nationally and generally wanted it for benchmarking purposes.
Based on these findings, the report outlines three possible options for establishing a routine, national standardised data collection:
The report also provides the key features and processes required to effectively establish a national FGC data collection. These include:
The report recommends adopting a phased approach to data collection. The phased approach would begin with Option 1, which involves co-designing a survey with the sector and then collecting aggregated local authority-level data. This would then be used to support the implementation of Option 2 and 3, which are more complex, resource-intensive data collection methods. Foundations will be discussing these options with the Department for Education.
You can view the project linked to this publication here:
Rated 1: Set up and delivery is low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.
Rated 2: Set up and delivery is medium-low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.
Rated 3: Set up and delivery is medium cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.
Rated 4: Set up and delivery is medium-high cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.
Rating 5: Set up and delivery is high cost. Equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.
Set up and delivery cost is not applicable, not available, or has not been calculated.
Click here for more information.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Rated 2: Has preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome from a quantitative impact study, but there is not yet evidence of causal impact.
Rated 2+: Meets the level 2 rating and the best available evidence is based on a study which is more rigorous than a level 2 standard but does not meet the level 3 standard.
Rated 3: Has evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous study.
Rated 3+: Meets the level 3 rating and has evidence from other studies with a comparison group at level 2 or higher.
Rated 4: Has evidence of a long-term positive impact through at least two rigorous studies.
Rated 4+: Meets the level 4 rating and has at least a third study contributing to the Level 4 rating, with at least one of the studies conducted independently of the intervention provider.
Rating has a *: The evidence base includes mixed findings i.e., studies suggesting positive impact alongside studies, which on balance, indicate no effect or negative impact.
Click here for more information.