Family Group Conferences: Service design & family experience

Final report

Strengthening family networks
March 23, 2026

Family Group Conferences: Service design & family experience

Highlights

Existing evidence shows that Family Group Conferences (FGCs) can reduce the number of children entering care, but far less is known about how families actually experience the process.
In this study, most families involved with children’s social care were not offered an FGC, and practice and access varied widely across areas, including how and whether children were involved.
Differences in access and take-up were identified by age, ethnicity, and disability, indicating uneven opportunities for families to benefit.
Maintaining the voluntary nature of FGCs is essential, yet some referrers had an incomplete understanding of what informed consent requires and, in a small number of cases, consent did not appear to be given voluntarily by those with parental responsibility.
The report and practice briefing highlight what local areas need to deliver FGCs effectively and identifies were practice could be strengthened to widen access. This includes increasing referrers’ knowledge, awareness and understanding of the process; improving access and take-up for minoritised families; and ensuring families can give genuinely informed consent. These findings are timely as family first approaches are becoming embedded across the children’s social care system.

Family Group Conferences: Service design & family experience

Final report

Download

Family Group Conference access & uptake: Learning from families

Practice briefing

Download

Summary

This study explored how Family Group Conferences (FGCs) are currently delivered, what works well, and where challenges remain.

FGCs, a form of Family Group Decision Making (FGDM), are an evidence‑based way to help children remain safely within their families rather than entering public care. They are a voluntary, family‑led process in which relatives and close friends come together to create a support plan for a child, guided by an independent coordinator.

Despite strong evidence of their impact at the pre‑proceedings stage, little was known about how consistently FGCs are offered, which families receive them, or why some choose to accept or decline. We also lacked detailed insight into how families with different backgrounds and levels of need experience the offer.

Foundations commissioned Coram, working with Family Rights Group and Lorna Stabler at Cardiff University, to conduct this research from October 2024 to September 2025.

Aims

The research aimed to understand:

The organisational and service conditions that influence whether, how, when and by whom FGCs are offered at pre‑proceedings and earlier stages.
The intersectional barriers and enablers that affect families being offered and/or accepting an FGC.
Families’ experiences of being offered and participating in an FGC at pre‑proceedings and earlier stages.

A further aim was to co‑produce evidence‑based solutions with stakeholders, including Experts by Experience, to promote equitable access, strengthen best practice, and increase take‑up so more children and families can benefit. These are captured in the practice briefing accompanying this report.

Method

Research methods included:

A rapid review of existing evidence on families’ experiences of being offered an FGC
Deep dives with six local authorities involving focus groups and interviews with FGC managers, coordinators, social workers and referring practitioners
Interviews and focus groups with parents/kinship carers
Interviews with sector experts and academics
Consultations with experts by experience of FGCs and/or the children’s social care system
A national data collection of local authorities on their FGC referral and consent processes and the number of FGC referrals, those consented to and those that took place
Co-design workshops with local authorities and an Experts by Experience advisory group to develop solutions on to identified barriers.

Key Findings

The number of children referred for an FGC was low

This is in comparison to the number of referrals to children’s social care, the number of Children in Need and children subject to a Child Protection Plan. This is despite 86% of local authorities having an FGC service or developing one. Only 1 in 10 children were in pre-proceedings at the time of referral. This is likely to be significantly lower than the overall figure.

There was wide variation in FGC practice

Referrals ranged from 7 to 1,144 per local authority (average 220), and meetings from 0 to 474 (average 117). Across all local authorities that provided data, 54% of children referred for an FGC had a meeting take place. Local authorities were also found , and most referrals (83%) came from statutory services such as Child Protection, Child in Need, and child in care. Variation was also identified when engaging children and fathers.

Several disparities were identified in access and take-up of an FGC

Younger children (pre-birth and pre-school children) were more likely to be referred and have an FGC consented to than older children.
Children from a Black ethnic background seem to be under-represented in referrals (5% of referrals vs 10% of Children in Need in the same local authorities in 2023/24).
Disabled children were alsounderrepresented in referrals (9%), despite higher consent (81%) and conference rates (73%) when compared to children who do not have a known disability (75% and 52%, respectively).
White children had the lowest consent rate(75%), and Asian children the highest (88%).
Language barriers and limited interpreter availability were found to pose barriers to both reach and take-up.

Consent was identified as a practice issue

Ensuring the voluntary nature of FGDM/FGC is maintained is an integral part of the overall process. However, the research found no widely shared understanding amongst referring professionals of how informed consent should be obtained for the purpose of FGC or what it entails.

Consent rates were lower at pre-proceedings (61%) compared to the overall consent rate for all referrals captured in the data collection (79%). This was thought to be due to increased pressures and limited timescales at this stage acting as a barrier to parents/carers consenting.

A number of factors were perceived to enable FGC referrals and take-up

Ongoing awareness raising through training, inductions and joint meetings
Clear referral trigger points within formal processes
Accessible information for families, including easy read and translated materials
Close, collaborative relationships between referrers and FGC teams
A culture of actively promoting FGCs, backed by senior leadership
Independence of the FGC coordinator
Strong, trusting relationships with referrers
Clear early explanation of the FGC process
Family readiness and ability to engage (g. supporting families to facilitate helpful conversations such as mediation or restorative circles).

Implications for Policy

As FGDM becomes embedded across the system, understanding the experiences of families and professionals can help ensure equitable access to this intervention. The findings point to several areas needing further attention; particularly, strengthening referrer knowledge of FGC and how it can benefit families, improving access for minoritised families, and ensuring that consent is genuinely informed. Ensuring these issues are addressed in forthcoming guidance and support for FGDM delivery will be important to ensure policy intentions deliver their full potential.

Implications for future research

Recommendations for further research include:

Examine age‑related differences, particularly why younger children are more often referred, and how access and consent can be strengthened for older children, including those supported by youth or youth justice services.
Explore cultural and disability‑related inequities, including lower take‑up among some ethnic minority families and barriers faced by disabled children and disabled parents/kinship carers, and identify effective, culturally responsive and accessible practice.
Investigate intersectional barriers for families experiencing multiple disadvantages and assess whether disparities persist after accounting for age, stage of children’s social care involvement, capacity and local practice.
Explore how FGCs can support families with small or dispersed networks and what effective practice looks like when network size limits referral.
Strengthen understanding of consent, including how informed, ongoing consent is secured and families’ reasons for declining.
Explore access and take‑up across different stages of children’s social care involvement – including early help, reunification, kinship and leaving‑care – and what supports families to accept an FGC.
Examine low take‑up in pre‑proceedings and assess the impact of the FGDM mandate, including barriers and enablers once the duty is implemented.
Prioritise children’s perspectives through participatory, co‑designed research to understand their experiences across referral, offer, consent and conference stages.
Improve FGC data and monitoring by exploring how better data quality, consistency and analysis can support equity monitoring and service improvement.