That’s why sometimes it’s important to zoom out and take a wider view. Fifty years ago, seatbelts weren’t required, yet now we do it without a thought. Then, smoking was everywhere – in offices, on buses, in pubs. Not now. These changes happened because of decisions made by politicians that seemed radical at the time. Now they seem so obvious.
Future practice
Fifty years from now, what practice might we look back on and see as damaging and harmful that needed a radical change?
Top of the list should be the way the current system sees families as problems to fix, instead of the people with the solutions.
Today, when children and families need help the systems there to support them are confusing, can feel finger pointing and blaming and overwhelmingly complex.
No family is without its challenges
Most of us would want to be leading the decision-making, or at least be involved, in finding a solution for our own children.
Those that love and care for children should be at the very heart of decision-making for their care and protection. We need to leave system-centred decision-making behind us and put the children and their families at the centre of our approach.
Family group conferences (known in Scotland as family-group decision-making (FGDM)) is a way to bring children, their families and other loved ones together, to agree how best to keep children safe.
It is a well-established and internationally evidenced model which involves in-depth work with children and their network of family and friends, to understand their experience and identify what needs to be addressed. While the child’s safety is the paramount consideration, the focus is on finding solutions to take forward through a family plan, which will be agreed by the family and social worker.
In understanding why FGC/FGDM works as well as it does, and there is a body of evidence on their impact – the Dutch practitioner Rob Van Pagee used a sporting analogy. Right now, family and community groups play as the away team in the child welfare system and as such they are disadvantaged. They don’t know the rules of the system. We use coded signals that are confusing to them. We meet in our offices, rather than in homes or community settings. FGCs on the other hand are the family playing at home. He said, across all sports, the home team wins 75% of the time. And it makes sense, the home team is on their turf, in their city or town with all the familiar smells, sounds, and sights. This gives them a significant advantage.
FGCs builds on the strengths and resilience in families, helping to communicate, resolve conflict and work together to keep children safe. Importantly, it holds children and families’ voices at the centre and empowers them to be at the heart of decision-making that affects them. Evidence has shown that it leads to a statistically significant reduction in children becoming ‘looked after’ when offered before court proceedings.
Why definition matters
Introducing a clearly defined, legally mandated right to FGC/FGDM for every child that needs it is a crucial step towards achieving this change.
Currently, FGDM is being considered as part of a set of significant reforms in both Scotland and England. In England, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill puts it at the forefront, with a new mandate set out in section 1 of the bill.
With legislation, the devil is always in the detail. The way that FGDM is described in the law matters, because if the process offered to families fails to include the core components of the evidence-based model FGC, then the strength, opportunity and safety of the model can be lost.
FGDM is much more than simply gathering families together or making more of an effort to consider a family’s network. Essential factors that are key to making it work include an independent coordinator facilitating the process, preparation time and safely planning, and private time in the meeting so the child and their family network are truly leading the decision making.
Scotland has had recent experience of this. There is a reference to family group decision making in legislation passed in 2016. While it looks like a mandate for ensuring that FGDM is offered in every local authority, it is not clear and precise enough in what it is asking for. As a result, 10 years on and a third of local authorities still have no FGDM offer at all. Where there is an FGDM offer, there are hurdles to accessing it and its place in practice and procedure is not secure.
Currently in England, the Children’s Wellbeing and School Bill does not set out the core components that evidence tells us is so key to making FGC/FGDM work.
Seizing the opportunity
In both England and Scotland, we are at a crucial point in this journey. Where families are heard and have influence, plans are more effective and often this will mean services are more aligned with children and family needs. Putting rights and relationships at the heart of planning helps connections to strengthen and extend, and conflict to reduce, which ultimately increases the safety network around the child.
Our law makers at both Westminster and Holyrood need to seize the opportunities in front of them, by making sure that family group decision making is clearly defined in legislation, so that 50 years from now we can look back with pride at the difference this has made to keeping children safe and loved in their communities.
