Family group conferences (FGCs) are a form of family group decision making (FGDM) used in children’s social care. Our evidence has shown that FGCs can be effective at reducing the number of children going into care when completed at the pre-proceedings stage. Despite this, there is currently limited data on how families are presented with an offer of an FGC and why some families choose to take up this offer or refuse it.
We have commissioned Coram and Family Rights Group to conduct a research project exploring how FGCs are offered to families in England and the factors influencing their decision to take up or turn down this offer. We are particularly interested in understanding the experiences of families from minoritised ethnic backgrounds or other marginalised communities.
To ensure our research builds on what is already known about the experiences of families being offered FGCs, we have published a new rapid evidence review looking at the existing research into families’ experiences of being offered an FGC.
This rapid evidence review aims to inform the design of subsequent research activities within this project. The findings from the review will feed into the key lines of enquiry for fieldwork with local authorities and support the development of hypotheses to test with professionals with families. This study will also inform the support local areas implementing findings from our research. The overall project aims to deliver evidence-based guidance to support local authorities and the sector to deliver more equitable access to FGCs and higher take-up from families.
The study aims to review the existing qualitative research literature on families’ experiences of being offered an FGC, as well as factors which may influence their decision to turn down or take up this offer. Literature considering the process and outcomes of FGC was excluded, as the research focuses on service design and experiences related to the offer and acceptance/rejection of an FGC. The review used narrative synthesis methods to generate findings around factors which may influence the offering and acceptance of FGCs.
The review identified a number of barriers and enablers to families accessing FGCs and details common reasons why families do or do not accept the offer of an FGC. The review also summarises reasons which might affect practitioners’ decisions whether to offer to a family.
Existing research suggests that some families may be unwilling to accept the offer of an FGC due to a lack of trust either in the statutory services, their own family network, or in the effectiveness of an FGC itself.
The findings of this review suggest that there are sometimes misunderstandings amongst social workers about what the FGC model is and the situations where it is an appropriate intervention.
Where referrers and FGC coordinators are well-trained in the FGC model, have bought into the approach, and are able to develop warm and sincere relationships with families, families are often encouraged to accept the offer of an FGC. The findings also demonstrate the importance of the referral and preparation phase for building trust between the coordinator and family members.
The existing research also notes other factors which help families to feel able to accept the offer of an FGC, such as control over the practical arrangements of the meeting and feeling a sense of hope that the FGC can improve their situation. Families feel hopeful when they are motivated to improve things for their child and believe that the FGC may make a difference to their situation.
The review found a significant gap in the existing research on how marginalised families experience the offer of an FGC, and what may influence their decision to accept or turn down the offer. There was limited existing research around how services can reach more families from marginalised groups, including ethnically minoritised communities. Some suggestions for how best to encourage ethnically minoritised families to accept the offer of an FGC included the development of cultural competence in the workforce, cultural/ethnic matching of the family with the FGC coordinator, and practical steps to ensure the FGC meeting itself included elements which were important to a family’s cultural or ethnic identity. The experiences of other marginalised communities in being offered an FGC was missing from the existing research.
The upcoming research activities and outputs from the Family Group Conferences: Service design & family experience project aim to address these gaps in the existing research.
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.