The Impact of Family Group Conferences (FGCs)

How do we know family group conferences (FGCs) work?

What is the impact of family group conferences (FGCs)?

Family group conferences in numbers

Family group conference (FGC) research and briefings

Footnotes

1. 1. 1. Karen J. Skaale Havnen and Øivin Christiansen 2012 op cit
      2. See Edwards, M, Tinworth, K, Burford, G and Pennell, J (2007) Family Team Meeting (FTM) process, outcome and impact evaluation phase ii report. Englewood, CO: American Humane Association.
         Similarly, Edwards et al (2007) found higher rates of reunification for children whose families participated in FGC compared with those who didn’t.
      3. (Pennell et al., 2010; Sheets et al., 2009) A couple of studies conclude that children who participated in FGCs were reunited with their parents quicker than others who didn’t receive FGCs. In the Pennell study the group who were reunited following family team meetings had shorter placements than both comparison groups and they were more often returned to parents and relatives than the non-FTM group.
      4. Foundations. (2023). Family Group Conferencing at pre-proceedings stage. Foundations – What Works Centre for Children & Families. https://foundations.org.uk/our-work/publications/family-group-conferencing-at-pre-proceedings-stage/
      5. Mason, P., Ferguson, H., Morris, K., Munton, T., and Sen, R (2017). Leeds Family Valued evaluation
         report. Children’s Social Care Innovation Programme Evaluation, report 43. Available at:
         https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/625222/Leeds_Family_Valued_-_Evaluation_report.pdf 99% of family who participated felt their FGC had helped address their problems and 91% felt the services they were offered were appropriate to their needs.
      6. Corwin T. W., Maher E. J., Merkel-Holguin L., Allan H., Hollinshead D. M., Fluke J. D. (2020) ‘Increasing social support for child welfare-involved families through family group conferencing’, The British Journal of Social Work, 50(1), pp. 137–56.
      7. Evaluation of SA Family Group Conferencing FINAL REPORT July 2024
         Evaluation of introduction of FGC in South Australia. Looked at implementation and outcomes of over 1000 FGC referrals over period from 2220 to 2024. Most referred in investigative phase of child protection enquiries. Mixture of quantitative and qualitative research methods. ‘Compared to matched comparison groups, it was found that overall, children who have participated in the FGC program are significantly more likely to have a subsequent case closure, significantly less likely to be the subject of future substantiations of child maltreatment, and significantly less likely to be placed in out-of-home care.’
      8. Falck, S., & Clausen, S.-E. (2006). Endrer familieråd barnas situasjon? En kvantitativ analyse av hvem de er og hvordan detgikk. In S. Falck (Ed.), Hva er det med familieråd? General report from the project: Nasjonal satsing for utprøving ogevaluering av familieråd i Norge (pp. 81-104). Oslo: NOVA-rapport 18/06
         ‘Findings from a Norwegian study indicate a reduction in contact with public services over time following FGC, and that more children from the comparison groups were in contact with child welfare services when followed up one year after the conference. The authors conclude that the fact that the FGC cases initially had a higher degree of severity than comparison cases makes these findings especially positive. According to the researchers, one explanation might be that the FGC children had less contact with the child welfare services because the children were getting more support from the family network.’
      9. Munro, E. R., Meetoo, V., Quy, K., and Simon, A. (2017) Daybreak Family Group Conferencing: children on the edge of care. Children’s Social Care Innovation Programme Evaluation, report 54.
         Munro et al showed that more of the children stayed at home or with relatives in the families receiving FGCs, leading to a considerably lower cost (around £1,598) than children who required a placement outside their family home (around £17,557) [(69), p. 47].Creating strong communities in north-east Lincolnshire.
      10. Rodger, John, Woolger, Amy, Cutmore, Matthew and Wilkinson, Lesley, Department for Education (DFE)
          York Consulting LLP, corp creators. (2017) Creating Strong Communities in North East Lincolnshire. Evaluation report, July 2017. [ Research Report ] Ref: ISBN 978-1-78105-651-6, DFE-RR590 PDF, 5.07 MB, 91 pages
          ‘Information has been collected relating to the outcomes of 20 families who have had an FGC as part of the Creating Strong Communities programme. The sample of families consists of our 10 case studies and 10 additional cases provided by the FGC team. In all cases, the initial outcomes have been positive.’
          Analysis showed a saving of £18 for every £1 spent. ‘Figure 6 shows the comparative costs and benefits of supporting a child with and without FGC, and linking them to investment decisions. FGC support is shown to the cost of £536, a benefit of £9,776 and a return on investment of 18.2.’
      11. Mason, P., Ferguson, H., Morris, K., Munton, T., and Sen, R (2017). Leeds Family Valued evaluation
          report. Children’s Social Care Innovation Programme Evaluation, report 43. Available at:
          https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/625222/Leeds_Family_Valued_-_Evaluation_report.pdf
      12. Munro, E. R., Meetoo, V., Quy, K., and Simon, A. (2017) Daybreak Family Group Conferencing: children on the edge of care. Children’s Social Care Innovation Programme Evaluation, report 54. Available at: https://innovationcsc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/1.2.82- Daybreak_Family_Group_Conferencing.pdf In a UK based comparative study of families receiving services at the pre-proceedings stage Munro et al (2017) demonstrated that those who received an FGC were nearly half as likely to end up in the court system (proceedings were initiated in 29% of FGC cases), compared of families who received ‘care as normal’ (proceedings were initiated in 50%)
      13. Mason, P., Ferguson, H., Morris, K., Munton, T., and Sen, R (2017).
      14. “FGC can provide a mechanism for a shared dialogue about how the different expectations of family members and professionals can be brought together and are seen as mutually important for progress’
          Mitchell M. Reimagining child welfare outcomes: Learning from Family Group Conferencing. Child & Family Social Work. 2020; 25: 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12676
      15. Mason, P., Ferguson, H., Morris, K., Munton, T., and Sen, R (2017). Leeds Family Valued evaluation
          report. Children’s Social Care Innovation Programme Evaluation, report 43. Available at:
          https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/625222/Leeds_Family_Valued_-_Evaluation_report.pdf
      16. Mitchell et al 2020 op cit
      17. Knowledge Review on Family Group Conferencing, Experiences and Outcomes. Regional Centre for Child and Youth Mental Health and Child Welfare (RKBU West), Uni Research Health Karen J. Skaale Havnen and Øivin Christiansen 978-82-92970-77-5 Front cover illustration: AN-Imation/Anne Kristin Berge 2014 Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs (Bufdir)
      18. Ryan, M. (2000) Working with Fathers. Radcliffe Medical Press, Oxon.’There is also a reported higher rate of attendance by fathers and father figures at FGCs than at statutory meetings, such as child protection conferences’.
      19. Ryan, M. (2000) Working with Fathers. Radcliffe Medical Press, Oxon.’There is also a reported higher rate of attendance by fathers and father figures at FGCs than at statutory meetings, such as child protection conferences’.
      20. Although the effectiveness of FGCs is determined by two factors ‘First, allowing space to consult family resources and engage in dialogue, and second, affording proximity to the local context and community.’
      21. Research concerning the nature of FGC plans and the resources committed to families by services and family members shows a broad range of often family led supports. Howitz demonstrated that 88% of FGCs resulted in kin agreements to help with children, 75% in emotional support, 44% support with transport, 35% in emergency respite care of children, and 32% providing a home for the child. (Horwitz 2008).