an evaluation of the family group conference pilot project ... · web viewthe family group...
TRANSCRIPT
AN EVALUATION OF THE FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCE PILOT PROJECT IN THE ULSTER COMMUNITY AND HOSPITALS TRUST (UCHT)
A Report Prepared for the Family and Child Care Programme
by
DAVID HAYES
May 2000
CONTENTS:
1.0: INTRODUCTION Page 2
1.1: FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCES IN UCHT Page 3
1.2: REFERRALS TO THE PILOT PROJECT Page 4
1.3: FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCES CONVENED DURING THE PILOT PROJECT Page 5
2.0: METHODOLOGY Page 6
2.1: SAMPLE GROUPS Page 7
3.0: FINDINGS Page 8
3.1: BEFORE THE FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCE Page 8
3.2: THE FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCE Page 15
3.3: AFTER THE FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCE Page 30
4.0: CONCLUSIONS Page 34
APPENDICES Page 36
1
1.0: INTRODUCTION:
This evaluation was commissioned by the UCHT Family Group Conference (FGC) Pilot Project Steering Group, and the present author was approached to undertake it because of his interest in Family Group Conferences as a method of working.
It was agreed that the evaluation would encompass the views of co-ordinators, information-givers, and family members who had participated in conferences during the period from 26th November 1998 to 7th December 1999. The final report would make recommendations for the development of the project, if appropriate, and for further research.
The author is grateful to all the professional staff and family members who participated in the evaluation or offered assistance. In particular, thanks to Cecil Worthington, Programme Manager (Family and Child Care) and Linda Crozier, Children’s Services Trainer, for their support and encouragement, and to Sam Allison and Catherine McCambridge, Independent Co-ordinators (Newtownabbey Family Centre) for their participation in the evaluation and their patience with my requests for information.
2
1.1: FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCES IN UCHT:
The UCHT project was established in June 1998 when the Steering Group was formed and potential independent co-ordinators were approached. The project was a result of interest locally in the New Zealand FGC model which it was felt was very much consistent with the principles underpinning the Children (NI) Order 1995.
In May 1998, an awareness raising day was held for staff within the Family and Child Care Programme. This was facilitated by Paul Nixon from Hampshire Social Services Department and staff from the Northern Health and Social Services Board (Sam Allison, Catherine McCambridge and Avery Bowser) who had some experience of FGCs within their own organisation.
During July and August 1998 packs were distributed to all Team Leaders within the Programme giving information about FGCs and referrals were requested. Members of the Steering Group also were available to deal with any queries that arose amongst staff and, at the end of this period, six referrals had been received.
In September 1998, Sam Allison and Catherine McCambridge (Newtownabbey Family Centre) were appointed as independent co-ordinators and the referrals, once prioritised, were passed on to them. Prior to the co-ordinators contacting families, they had initially been spoken to by their social workers who had explained the process of an FGC to them and got their agreement to proceed. Initial contact with families by the co-ordinators was made in October 1998.
The first FGC within UCHT was held in November 1998 and following this, despite its positive outcome, difficulties arose and referrals stopped coming in. The Steering Group addressed these difficulties and, in March 1999, referrals again started to be received by the project.
During the period 26th November 1998 to 7th December 1999, with which this evaluation is concerned, a total of eight FGCs were held within UCHT. Details regarding these are contained in the following section of this report.
3
1.2: REFERRALS TO THE PILOT PROJECT:
Table 1 displays the referrals made to the Pilot Project during the period from September 1998 to December 1999;
Case Type Reason Convened? Reason for not Convening
Reviews
A Family Support To co-ordinate support
No Parent unwilling to proceed
-
B Looked After To inform Care Plan
No Referral withdrawn by Social Worker
-
C Child Protection To inform Child Protection Plan
No Refused by parent -
D Child Protection To inform Child Protection Plan
NoSocial Worker, family and Co-ordinator agreed not useful to proceed
-
E Child Protection To inform Child Protection Plan
Yes - 1
F Looked After To inform Care Plan
No Ongoing Court Proceedings - contested
-
G Child Protection To inform Child Protection Plan
Yes - -
H Child Protection To inform Child Protection Plan
Yes - 2
I Child Protection To inform Child Protection Plan
Yes - -
J Child Protection To inform Child Protection Plan
Yes - -
Table 1: Referrals To The Pilot Project (September 1998 – December 1999).
4
1.3: FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCES CONVENED DURING THE PILOT PROJECT:
Table 2 displays a breakdown of the eight FGCs convened during the life of the pilot project listed in the order in which they occurred;
Case & FGC No.
Type Attendance (Family)
Attendance (Professionals)
Venue Timing Outcome
E(1)
Initial 2 Parents13 FamilyNo children
2 Co-ordinators1 SSW1 Social Worker
Leisure Centre
Week dayEvening
Plan Agreed
E(2)
Review 1 Parent7 FamilyNo children
2 Co-ordinators1 Social Worker1 Family Support
Leisure Centre
Week dayEvening
Plan Agreed
G(3)
Initial 2 Parents2 Family3 Children1 Friend
2 Co-ordinators1 Social Worker1 Family Support
SalvationArmy Centre
Week dayEvening
Plan Agreed
H(4)
Initial 2 Parents4 Family1 Child
2 Co-ordinators1 APSW
Salvation Army Centre
Week dayEvening
Plan Agreed
H(5)
Review 2 Parents4 Family1 Child1 Foster carer
2 Co-ordinators1 SSW1 Social Worker
Salvation Army Centre
Week dayEvening
Plan Agreed
I(6)
Initial 2 Parents5 Family1 Child (baby)1 Friend(*1 Exclusion)
2 Co-ordinators1 Social Worker
Hotel Week endDay time
Plan Agreed
H(7)
Review 1 Parent3 Family1 Child1 Foster carer
2 Co-ordinators1 SSW1 Social Worker
Salvation Army Centre
Week dayEvening
Plan Agreed
J(8)
Initial 1 Parent5 FamilyNo Children(*1 Exclusion)
2 Co-ordinators1 SSW1 Social Worker
Salvation Army Centre
Week dayEvening
No Plan Made
Table 2: FGCs Convened During The Pilot Project.
5
2.0: METHODOLOGY:
Information was collected from three groups as follows;
1. Co-ordinators;
A questionnaire (APPENDIX 1) was forwarded to the two Co-ordinators and this was completed in respect of each of the eight FGCs convened during the pilot project. The questionnaire was based upon one used in the evaluation of the Essex Family Group Conference project (Smith and Hennessy 1999*).
2. Information-Givers;
A questionnaire and accompanying letter (APPENDIX 2) was forwarded to each of the eleven professionals who acted as information-givers. The questionnaire was again based upon one used in the Essex evaluation. Reminder letters (APPENDIX 3) were forwarded approximately two weeks later and nine responses were received. Comments were received in relation to each of the eight FGCs convened during the pilot project.
3. Family Members;
An interview schedule (APPENDIX 4) was adapted from one used in the Essex evaluation. Family members were approached by the Co-ordinators and, if they were willing to participate in the research, they were contacted and an interview appointment was arranged. The names of seventeen family members were supplied and twelve subsequently made themselves available for interview. The family members interviewed represented three of the five families involved in the FGCs convened during the pilot project.
*Smith, L. and Hennessy, J. (1999) Making A Difference: Essex Family Group Conference Project: Research Findings And Practice Issues, Chelmsford: Essex Social Services
6
2.1: SAMPLE GROUPS:
1. Information-Givers;
Responses were received from,
4 Social Workers, 2 Senior Social Workers, 1 Assistant Principal Social Worker, 2 Family Support Workers.
2. Family Members;
The following family members were interviewed,
2 Mothers, 2 Fathers, 1 Maternal Grandmother, 2 Paternal Aunts, 1 Maternal Aunt, 1 Paternal Uncle, 1 Maternal Uncle, 2 Cousins.
3.0: FINDINGS:
7
The findings from the questionnaires to Co-ordinators and Information-Givers and the interviews with family members are now presented.
3.1. BEFORE THE FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCE:
Co-ordinators;
In all eight instances the Co-ordinators rated the information they were given about the case prior to the FGC as adequate. This information was made available by the referring Social Worker via the referral form which has been adopted from the Hampshire FGC project. Data was not collected regarding whether or not the Co-ordinators had to actively seek further information and the amount of time that they spent on this. The Co-ordinators themselves made no comment about this nor did they indicate that there was any further information they would have wished for.
The Co-ordinators were asked to rate, in relation to each individual case, how well prepared they felt certain categories of family members had been concerning the process of the FGC. Their responses are presented in Table 3;
Category Very Well Prepared
Well Prepared
Not Well Prepared
Not At All Prepared
Not Applicable
Total
Child/ren - 4 - - 4 8
Mother 1 4 2 - 1 8
Father 1 5 - - 2 8
Relatives 1 4 3 - - 8
Step-Parents - 1 - - 7 8
Others - 4 - - 4 8
Table 3: Co-ordinators’ Views On How Well Prepared Family Members Had Been Concerning The Process Of The FGC.
The Co-ordinators were also asked, in relation to each case, to rate the initial reactions of these various categories of family members to the idea of an FGC. Responses are presented in Table 4;
Category Very Favourable
Favourable Neither Unfavourable Very Unfavourable
Not Applicable
Total
Child/ren - 1 3 - - 4 8
8
Mother 2 5 - - - 1 8
Father 3 3 - - - 2 8
Relatives 4 2 2 - - - 8
Step-Parents
- 1 - - - 7 8
Others 1 3 - - - 4 8
Table 4: Co-ordinators’ Views On Family Members’ Initial Reactions To The Idea Of An FGC.
The Co-ordinators’ responses regarding how easy it was to arrange the FGC in each case from the points of view of the families, the professionals, and practicalities (e.g. time and venue) are presented in Table 5;
Category Very Easy Quite Easy Quite Difficult
Very Difficult Total
Families 1 3 4 - 8
Professionals 2 2 4 - 8
Practicalities 4 4 - - 8
Table 5: Co-ordinators’ Views On How Easy It Was To Arrange The FGC.
Some of the comments made by the Co-ordinators about arranging the FGC illustrate some of the difficulties encountered in certain cases;
“Circumstances changed (after the first FGC) and one side of the family, with two exceptions, withdrew completely”
“The social worker and team leader had to withdraw at short notice and we had to resist a request for postponement. Eventually the agency was represented”
“There were issues about including the father”
“The parents were pursuing an official complaint which made the dynamics difficult”
“One side of the family refused to take part”
“One parent sought to have the FGC at a venue that was in his control and that would have excluded other family members. This took considerable working with”
“There were issues about excluding the father because of domestic violence, the mother’s wishes, and court orders”Information-Givers;
The professionals who acted as information-givers were asked how well they knew about FGCs before attending one. Their responses are presented in Figure 1;
9
Figure 1: Information-Givers’ Responses Regarding How Well They Knew About FGCs Before Attending One.
Four of the information-givers stated that they had received some previous training about FGCs and five said that they had not. Of the four who received training, three referred to a one day training event within the Trust which covered the history, principles and process of FGCs and one referred to a two day conference in England.
Regarding information about FGCs, six of the information-givers stated that they had received practice guidance for referring professionals and, of these, two had also received guidance for families. All six described this information as helpful although some felt that the information was basic and some said that it had only been given to them verbally which they felt was not appropriate;
“The information was useful but basic”
“I only knew what the social worker explained to me prior to the meeting”
“Yes it was useful – in a simple, broad fashion”
“I was only given verbal information. I had knowledge from the conference but, if I had not had this, then the verbal information would have been inadequate”
None of the information-givers had received practice guidance for introducing FGCs to children and young people or information on how FGCs interface with child protection procedures and three stated that they had received no previous information. Some of the comments made by information-givers illustrate the types of information they feel they need about FGCs;
“Some form of leaflet or written information would have been great to help me and my line-manager understand the process”
“We need a simple booklet to explain why, where, how, who – all the questions, taking it through from start to finish in our Trust. Verbal information is not enough”“I had discussed the referral with my Senior and the organisers of the FGC but no written material was provided"
“I needed information on how the FGC linked to child protection procedures but I didn’t have it to refer to”
10
“Feedback on how the scheme has been successful”
“Needed information on the interface with child protection – clear difficulties”
“A sharing of information / experiences from other social workers who have participated in an FGC may be useful, both successful and unsuccessful ones”
Figure 2 presents information-givers responses when asked how convenient, in terms of time and venue, it was for them to attend the FGC;
Figure 2: Information-Givers’ Responses When Asked How Convenient It Was, In Terms Of Time And Venue For Them To Attend The FGC.
Some comments help to illustrate information-givers’ feelings about the convenience of these arrangements;
“It was in the evening, late, after a busy day, and went on until very late”
“It was held during the evening from 7pm to 10pm. This is fine occasionally but not on a regular basis. After a full days work the FGC was really quite tiring. I felt tired the next morning”
“The FGC took place on a Sunday. My personal circumstances required a lot of organisation i.e. childminding. The venue was fine”
“The FGC took place in the evening, outside working hours. That may be inconvenient for some, however, I was happy to accommodate this”
Family Members;
Seven of the twelve family members interviewed stated that they had received a leaflet about FGCs before the meeting, three said they had received a verbal explanation from either the Co-ordinators or their social worker which was followed-up by a letter, and two stated that they had received a verbal explanation only.
11
Table 6 presents family members’ responses when asked about the information they had received about FGCs prior to the meeting;
Yes In Parts No Total
Was The Information Clear? 7 5 - 12
Was The Information Enough? 10 2 - 12
Table 6: Family Members’ Responses When Asked About The Information They Had Received Prior To The FGC.
Some comments reflect what family members were told about the purpose of the FGC before attending;
“That there were concerns about the kids and it was to see how everybody could help out”
“It was about bringing both sides of the family together. The social worker would be there and the situation would be discussed. Other than that I didn’t know what was going to happen”
“To discuss things and see what was best for the kids – that’s what its all about, just about the kids and who they should go to live with”
“They (co-ordinators) explained it was better for the family to gather round this situation rather than people that don’t really know the ins and outs of it whereas the family had more knowledge of the background and could help more with it”
“That it was to see if anyone in the family could help out before the kids came into care”
As indicated in Table 6, some family members felt that there were gaps in the information they had received and that they would have liked more;
“I don’t remember being told anything specific – she didn’t go into a lot of detail”
“Maybe I just didn’t take it all in – it was thrown at me, it wasn’t a detailed discussion”
“It was made as clear as it could be but you didn’t really know what it was going to be like until it happened”
“I got the general drift of it – the aims of it, but I still didn’t really know”
“It would have been better to have had more time to sit and talk through it with someone. They (Co-ordinators) said it would give the family more clout but I wasn’t exactly sure what they meant by that”Other information family members said they would have liked included more detail on what the concerns were for the child/ren, what might happen as a result of the FGC, and more detailed discussion around how an FGC might help in relation to their particular circumstances. Some family members felt that the co-ordinators did not have sufficient information to share with them;
“They (Co-ordinators) weren’t sure exactly what the problems were themselves”
12
“They (Co-ordinators) only talked to me about it for 15-20 minutes. They were obviously coming in to the situation cold”
Five family members stated that they had received written information from the social worker based on their assessment and concerns for the children. Four found this helpful and one (a parent) did not as they believed the assessment to be inaccurate. Seven family members did not receive this type of written information and four said they would have found this helpful if it had been provided;
“Not necessarily a lot of information, but just something about what had been happening with the kids”
“It would have been helpful. We were going to the meeting with a lot of uncertainty because we didn’t even know what the problems were. We were going there with a blank sheet and felt that maybe we needed to know what was wrong beforehand so that we would have time to come up with ideas”
Three family members said that they would not have found it helpful to have this type of information before the meeting and one gave the following reason;
“Its probably a good idea that you didn’t know everything before you went down otherwise you might have got angry with other people in the family”
Two family members recalled that their first contact with the Co-ordinators was when they called in person to their homes whereas the other ten state that the Co-ordinators contacted them by telephone in the first instance and then followed this up with a home visit. Figure 3 displays family members’ responses when asked what their feelings were about the idea of an FGC at this first contact with the Co-ordinators;
Figure 3: Family Members’ Responses When Asked What Their Feelings Were About The Idea Of An FGC.Some comments help to illustrate family members’ feelings about the idea of an FGC;
“I had mixed feelings about it. I’d never been involved with anything like that before or with social workers – I think it was just the unknown”
13
“I thought that it was a good idea because the family would be made more aware and wouldn’t get any garble information. Everything would be aired and the facts would be presented as they actually were”
“I was shocked by the problems in my family and I wanted to help if I could”
“I was glad to be asked. I had never been involved in those other meetings (case conferences) because its apparently not policy to invite the Granny, but I do have a lot of contact with the children”
“I was scared to Hell – of meeting the family and sitting there letting it all out in front of them”
“I was glad that there was something being done and that there was help available”
“We were concerned about (child) and so we were keen to get involved in it”
“I felt it was a step in the right direction to get things sorted out”
When asked what they expected to get from the FGC family members gave a number of responses;
Help for the children (1 respondent) Information about what was happening within the family (1 respondent) Support and understanding from the family (2 respondents) To be able to offer help in order to resolve family difficulties (2 respondents) A plan to address the family’s difficulties / concerns about the children (2 respondents) No particular expectations (4 respondents)
Table 7 presents family members’ responses when asked about the suitability of the time and venue of the FGC;
Yes No Total
Did The Time Arranged For The FGC Suit You? 9 3 12
Were You Consulted About The Time? 11 1 12
Did The Place Arranged For The FGC Suit You? 11 1 12
Were You Consulted About The Place? 8 4 12
Table 7: Family Members’ Responses When Asked About The Suitability Of The Time And Venue Of The FGC.3.2: THE FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCE:
Stage 1 – Information-Giving:
Co-ordinators;
14
In six of the cases the Co-ordinators reported that they felt that information had been in a way that the family could understand it so that they could make their decisions. They were unsure if this was so in two cases;
“Information was clear, concrete and comprehensive. The family also raised their own issues about services being received”
“Perhaps too many issues were presented”
“The social worker provided a written report on the original FGC plan and what had been achieved”
In seven cases the Co-ordinators felt that family members had been provided with enough information to make decisions on their own and they were unsure about this in one case.
Information-Givers;
Eight of the information-givers stated that producing information for the FGC was significantly different from the reports they had produced for child protection case conferences. Some comments help to illustrate what they felt the nature of these differences were;
“It was for ‘real people’. I was consciously not using ‘professional’ or jargonistic language. The focus was not specifically child protection – more holistic”
“Much more informal”
“Much briefer and more focused on significant issues”
“Format was different, written with a presentation in mind. Similar weighing up of risks. Emphasis on Social Services’ bottom line”
“More targeted and specific. However, brevity often required verbal explanation”
“At a case conference I provide a written report – at the FGC I gave information verbally”
“Information for the FGC was in bullet points that would be easily understood”
When asked how they saw their role at the FGC most were clear that it was to provide information to the family group in order to assist them to make decisions and a plan;
“To provide the family with information on the problems, the ‘bottom line’, provision of services”
“Information-giver, scene setter, presenter of agency position”
“Focusing on the issues and problems making clear and specific the concerns and the bottom line. Providing information about services and resources”
“Provider of information and agency representative”
15
Table 8 presents information-givers’ responses when asked about the quality of information family members had been provided with;
Yes No Unsure Total
Were The Family Provided With Enough Information?
9 - - 9
Was The Information Presented In A Way The Family Could Understand It?
8 - 1 9
Table 8: Information-Givers’ Responses When Asked About The Quality Of Information Family Members Had Been Provided With.
Family Members;
In general family members felt that this part of the conference had went well although some problems were noted;
“Some of the family reacted angrily to things they didn’t want to hear and others didn’t say anything”
“People kept interrupting the social worker and disagreeing and shouting her down – they should have just listened. It might have helped if we had had the information beforehand – it wouldn’t have been as big a shock”
“Because people had just found out they vented their anger and a lot of time was wasted”
“It was handled well although people kept interrupting the social worker”
“There was a certain amount of insensitivity from (professional) in the way information was given and comments that were made to do with finances without any reference to me. Otherwise it was handled very well by the organisers”
“At one point things got to near boiling point but, after a while it settled down again. It was because we were hearing some things for the first time and it took us by surprise a bit”
All the family members reported that there was an opportunity for all members of the family to speak if they wanted to although some did not avail of this. In one case family members reported that, due to the sheer volume of information, they were unable to speak or ask questions until the end of the social worker’s presentation;
“It would have been better if the social worker had taken one point at a time and then let us ask questions because the family ended up in a bit of a muddle about it. We were all hearing these things for the first time"
Figure 4 displays family members’ responses when asked if they felt able to ask any questions they wanted to and Figure 5 presents their responses when asked if they felt comfortable during this part of the meeting;
16
Figure 4: Family Members’ Responses When Asked If They Felt Able To Ask Any Questions They Wanted To.
Figure 5: Family Members’ Responses When Asked If They Felt Comfortable In The Information-Giving Stage.
The issues of feeling able to ask questions and feeling comfortable seemed to be inter-related as is illustrated by some of the comments of family members;
“We were meeting there with strangers – the other side of the family – and didn’t know what their reactions would be at first – it was a bit intimidating”
“I was a bit uncomfortable finding out all this stuff for the first time”
“It was somebody else’s dirty washing being done in public”
“If there was anything we didn’t want discussed in front of (child) we asked her to go out of the room”
17
“There were certain questions I didn’t want to ask in front of (child) – any questions that might make her feel insecure”
“A little bit to do with pride, a feeling of invasion of privacy – having so much information given to people who may or may not pass it on elsewhere”
“There were certain questions we didn’t want to ask because of the other members of the family, in case they went off the handle a bit – you just don’t want to start any trouble”
“How would people react when they heard things about us”
“Other people saying things about me – they just spoke their mind”
One family member (a parent), however, stated that;
“I felt more comfortable at that meeting than I ever did at any case conference”
Nine of the family members felt that, at the end of the information-giving stage, they had been given all of the information they needed in order to help them draw up a family plan. Three stated that they would have liked more information and highlighted the following;
Practical help / resources available Clearer explanation of the concerns, reasons for these, and what needed to be addressed by
the family.
Stage 2 – Private Family Time:
Information-Givers;
The information-givers were asked to describe how they felt about leaving the family alone to discuss the issues that had been presented at the conference. As well as acknowledging the importance of this stage, their comments reflect both anxiety and curiosity about what was happening;
“Fine, it felt quite comfortable although I would love to have heard the process to understand how they resolved the difficulties. I felt they had a good grasp of the issues and were committed to their own people – their kin – in a way agency personnel could not be”
“I felt that this was important in empowering the family”
“It was essential to get an honest view of the situation”
“I felt nervous and apprehensive about letting the family ‘loose’ on each other – in other meetings a ‘referee’ had almost been required. But there was also a sense of fascination and intrigue as to how the family would behave and what they would produce being faced with the opportunity and responsibility”
“I was happy enough to leave the family alone – however, I was sitting outside the room for about an hour and a half with nothing to do and I found that frustrating”
18
Family Members;
Tables 9 and 10 display family members’ responses when asked about this stage of the FGC;
Yes No Total
Was What The Family Had To Do Made Clear? 10 2 12
Did You Feel You Had Enough Information About The Resources And Help Available?
8 4 12
Table 9: Family Members’ Responses When Asked If Their Task Was Made Clear And If They Had Enough Information About The Help And Resources Available.
Yes, Very Quite A Bit A Little Bit No, Not At All Total
Were You Able To Put Forward Your Views?
3 6 3 - 12
Did Other Family Members Listen To Your Views?
3 6 3 - 12
Were Your Opinions Seen As Important By Other Family Members?
- 8 3 1 12
Table 10: Family Members’ Responses When Asked About Their Contributions To The FGC During Private Family Time.
As illustrated in Table 9, the majority of family members felt that their task during Private Family Time had been made clear. The two who did not feel that this was the case both felt that they required further guidance on how to go about making a plan, where to start at, etc.
Most family members also felt that they had enough information about the help and resources available. Four did not feel that this was the case and, when asked what other information they felt they needed, suggested the following;
The roles of other professionals / workers involved with the family (1 respondent) Precise information about the practical help (including financial help) and resources available
(3 respondents)
Some family members stated they got the impression that the FGC was not about what help professionals could provide but solely about what the family could do;“It was about what the family could rally and put together or beg, borrow and steal”
19
“The impression I got from the outset was that this was to do with what resources were available from the family and what they could do for the children, not what the social workers could do”
Six family members felt that it was easier to talk in private without any professional workers present and two did not feel that this made any difference;
“I think everyone felt more comfortable when the social workers left. They weren’t listening in to your family business anymore”
“Even though the social workers were trying to help they were still separate from the family and always would be so it was good that they left”
“It was good being left to discuss things between the families”
“It was a good opportunity – people weren’t frightened to say things”
However, half of the family members interviewed indicated that problems had arisen during Private Family Time as a result of the professionals present. These problems included;
Parents being heavily criticised / attacked General arguments / disagreements amongst family members Parents feeling excluded from the decision-making Lack of full information about resources / help and having to constantly check this out;
As a result of these difficulties, four family members felt that it was more difficult to talk without the professionals present and six family members suggested there was a need for someone, professional or otherwise, to act as a ‘referee’ during this stage of the conference. These concerns can be illustrated by some of the family members’ comments;
“It might have been easier if (Co-ordinators) had stayed but then some people might have felt a bit intimidated about talking in front of them. But it might have been better so that we could have checked things out with them as we went along”
“… the insults were flying – it was just a big argument”
“It would have been better if somebody had been there, not one of the professionals, but somebody else independent, who could help the family sort out the plan and act as a referee”
“The way I took it was they (other family members) were trying to plan out things for us and telling us what to do”
“They (other family members) could say what they liked and the air was blue – they just didn’t listen to me”
“It got quite heated and it was all directed at me”
“There were disagreements and some very hurtful things were said that shouldn’t have been”
20
“It was easier to talk without the professionals there but it would have been easier still if somebody had been there to referee – say somebody the family chose themselves, like a minister or something”
“I would have preferred someone else to be there to keep things under control”
“The in-laws don’t believe all I say. If there was a professional there they can monitor what is said and impress upon them that this is actually fact and suggest that people pay attention – this might have helped and there might have been more honesty”
“Someone else should have been in the room to act as referee”
Stage 3 – Presenting and Agreeing the Plan:
Co-ordinators;
The Co-ordinators were asked to comment on how far they felt the family had addressed the issues presented by the information-givers in the plan. They felt that the family had addressed the issues fully in five cases, quite well in one case, and not very well in one case. There was also one case in which the family did not have private time and no plan was made.
Figure 6 displays the Co-ordinators’ responses when asked how satisfied they were with the family’s plan in each individual case;
Figure 6: Co-ordinators’ Responses when Asked How Satisfied They Were With The Family’s Plan.
In the one case where the Co-ordinators were unsure about the family’s plan they stated that this was because issues about resources being available to the children remained unclear.
Information-Givers;
Figure 7 displays information-givers’ responses when asked how satisfied they were with the plan drawn up by the family;
21
Figure 7: Information-Givers’ Responses When Asked How Satisfied They Were With The Plan Drawn Up By The Family.
Some comments reflect the information-givers’ feelings about the plans drawn up by family members;
“The plan was focused and realistic and clearly set out”
“The plan was detailed and supportive – very east to follow”
“At the time it was everything that was asked for and much more in terms of giving the family support. In hindsight we should have asked for a plan which would have taken account of the main issue not changing”
“The plan was clear and realistic and the family members appeared keen to accept responsibility for the changes they were proposing”
“Due to the carer’s lack of commitment it became impossible to sustain the plan”
Family Members;
All the family members felt that this part of the meeting went well. One commented that;
“By the end of the meeting the family were working quite well with the social workers to try to get the problems solved”
The majority (ten) also felt that there was an opportunity for all family members to speak during this stage if they wanted to, eleven felt that they had been able to ask any questions that they wanted, and only one reported feeling uncomfortable during this stage of the conference. One parent did not feel able to ask questions at this stage and commented thus;
“I felt it was for the family, not me. I felt it was out of my hands – it was a family decision”
Similarly, most family members felt that their views had been included in the plan apart from two parents who said;
“I don’t think anybody listened to me”
“I was going along with what the family decided”Figure 8 displays family members’ responses when asked how they felt about the plan;
22
Figure 8: Family Members’ Responses When Asked How They Felt About The Plan.
“I was very happy with the plan because everybody had tried their best”
“It was a plan we felt we could make work”
All of the family members felt that the plan had been given a fair hearing by the professionals.
Overall Impressions of the FGC:
Co-ordinators and Information-Givers;
Figure 9 compares the responses of Co-ordinators and information-givers when asked for their overall impression of the FGC (the co-ordinators’ responses are in relation to each individual FGC whereas the information-givers’ responses are in relation to the FGC which they attended*);
Figure 9: A Comparison Of The Responses Of Co-ordinators And Information-Givers When Asked For Their Overall Impression Of The FGC.Figure 10 compares the responses of Co-ordinators and information-givers when asked to comment on the family’s commitment during the FGC*;
23
Figure 10: A Comparison Of The Responses Of Co-ordinators And Information-Givers When Asked To Comment On The Family’s Commitment During The FGC.
“The family worked hard and addressed all of the issues presented to them. Strong leadership emerged” (Co-ordinator)
“The family members were committed to helping but there was also a high level of frustration at the parent for allowing the neglect of the children to become so chronic” (Information-Giver)
“Only a couple of family members attended but their commitment was 100%” (Information-Giver)
“The atmosphere was intense and emotionally charged from the word go”(Information-Giver)
“The family were unable to focus on the children. They were preoccupied with their own history of conflict, blame, and taking sides” (Co-ordinator)
“One side of the family was committed the other was not”
The Co-ordinators and information-givers were also asked how well they thought the family had used the FGC. Their responses are compared in Figure 11*;
24
Figure 11: A Comparison Of The Responses Of Co-ordinators And Information-Givers When Asked How Well They Thought The Family Had Used The FGC.
“The family devised a plan and requested a review. They seemed to find the process useful” (Co-ordinator)
“Relatives used the conference well to come up with constructive suggestions” ((Information-Giver)
“The family went beyond the concerns presented by Social Services and devised an appropriate plan. The family confirmed concerns that had previously been suspicions on the part of professionals” (Co-ordinator)
“They only used it in a negative, destructive fashion” (Co-ordinator)
“The family’s decisions really outlined work for the social worker. I had hoped that the family would have delegated more responsibility between family members” (Information-Giver)
“Unfortunately the plan focused mostly on the one person who had to change to make it all work. When he refused to change the plan fell down”
The Co-ordinators and Information-Givers were asked to rate the degree of friendliness at the FGC. Their responses are compared in Figure 12*;
Figure 12: A Comparison Of The Responses Of Co-ordinators And Information-Givers When Asked To Rate The Degree Of Friendliness At The FGC.
“Very informal and a nice atmosphere” (Information-Giver)
25
“Certain tension at the beginning but by the end there was a sense of purpose” (Co-ordinator)
“It was lovely. While I was presenting very traumatic and difficult issues the family members held hands with the children. In itself it was therapeutic as we had the painful issues clearly out in the open, not hidden or concealed and it was still alright, the family gave great support to the children, helping them deal with their feelings about it all being out there and talked about”(Information-Giver)
“Some hostility from one side of the family, however this was expected as there is a long history of child protection involvement” (Information-Giver)
“The family grilled me during the presentation and were hostile and confrontational. This resulted in difficulty in moving the process on to the important time when the family were left alone to draw up their plan” (Information-Giver)
Figure 13 compares the responses of Co-ordinators and information-givers when asked if they would rate the FGC as having been child focused*;
Figure 13: A Comparison Of The Responses Of Co-ordinators And Information-Givers When Asked If They Would Rate The FGC As Having Been Child Focused.
“The social worker’s presentation was child focused – this set the tone” (Co-ordinator)
“The conference was very much child focused. Extended family were very frustrated with the parents’ passive attitude to the neglect of the children” (Information-Giver)
“I felt the children benefited most from the FGC. Although the plan did not work because the main player refused to change the children took away their family’s care and interest in them” (Information-Giver)
“All the children were included in the plan and had their views taken into account” (Information-Giver)
The information-givers were asked if the FGC differed significantly from child protection conferences they had been to and all nine stated that it did. Some comments illustrate the differences which they identified;“The balance of power and control was entirely different and I think this must be a helpful experience for families”
26
“The process enabled responsibility for problem-solving to transfer to family members with some support from us”
“It empowers families and seems to make their contributions more real / valuable”
“Much more informal and not so intimidating for the family”
“More evidence of client participation”
“Less formal, less intimidating, less controlling, more productive”
“The balance of power / responsibility is significantly shifted”
“In every way. Its much more real, more relevant to the children’s lives, more likely to be effective. It belongs to the family rather than imposed upon them”
“At the FGC the responsibility is ‘given back’ to the family”
“The level of honesty that was being presented could not have been achieved at a child protection conference”
“The FGC offered the best chance of the situation changing than any plan previously imposed by child protection procedures”
The information-givers were asked to identify the positive and negative aspects of the FGCs which they attended. Their responses are presented in Table 11;
POSITIVE ASPECTS NEGATIVE ASPECTS
Involvement of extended family (2) Hostility (to social worker / family members (3) Fuller picture of concerns emerged (2) Parents were marginalised (2) Empowerment of family (3) Contingency plans not made (1) Positive change occurred (3) Lack of family commitment (2) Family recognised / acknowledged concerns (3) Poor facilitation (1) Beneficial to the child/ren (4) Inadequate information to social worker / family (1)
Lack of focus (initially) on family’s part (2)
Table 11: Information-Givers’ Responses When Asked To Identify The Positive And Negative Aspects Of The FGCs Which They Had Attended.
Family Members;
Six of the twelve family members stated that they had got everything they expected from the FGC, five said they got part of what they were expecting, and only one said they did not get what they were expecting at all.
Family members were asked to comment on the invitations to the FGC and their responses to questions on this issue are presented in Table 12;
Yes No Don’t Know Total
Were The Right Family Members Invited? 10 1 1 12
27
Were The Right Professionals Invited? 4 5 3 12
Table 12: Family Members’ Responses When Asked If The Right Family Members / Professionals Had Been Invited To The FGC.
Although the majority of family members felt that the right family members had been invited to the FGC a number questioned the attitudes of some of those who had attended. This can be illustrated by a lengthy quote from one of the family members interviewed;
“The right people were invited although some went in with the attitude – ‘this is my family and I’m going to defend them and fight it to the very last’. This was just the wrong attitude. You had to have an open mind and not have a ‘them and us’ attitude – it should be us working with them. One comment was made that made me quite cross. Part of our plan was that people would call in at random to check on hygiene in the house and one person said (to the parents) ‘don’t worry, we’ll not really do it but we’ll just tell them we will’ which to me was still them against us. I thought ‘what’s the point of us coming up with this stuff if we’re not going to do it?” – I mean, we’re expecting the social workers to carry out their end of the bargain”
The family members suggested a number of other professionals who they felt should have been invited to the FGC;
Health Visitor (4 family members) Family Support Worker (1 family member) Senior Social worker (1 family member) Teacher (1 family member)
One family member (a parent) stated that he felt a representative / advocate for him should have been invited to the FGC.
Six family members felt that their part in the FGC was appreciated a lot, three felt it was appreciated a bit, and three, two of whom were parents, stated that they did not know.
The family members were asked to identify which parts of the FGC they felt satisfied with and which parts they felt dissatisfied with. Their responses are presented in Table 13;
SATISFIED WITH DISSATISFIED WITH
The plan (5) Certain professionals not being present (1)
28
Being listened to by the professionals (1) Presence of certain family members (2) How it was organised / managed (1) Lack of in-depth discussion of issues (1) Sharing of information (1) Lack of financial help (1)
Involvement of the social worker (1) Parents feeling excluded from planning (2)*
Table 13: Family Members’ responses When Asked Which Parts Of The FGC They Felt Satisfied / Dissatisfied With.
“It would have been better if we had got a chance to say what we needed rather than the family just telling us what to do – this is what it felt like”
Family members were asked for their overall impression of this method of sorting out family difficulties. Their responses are presented in Figure 14;
Figure 14: Family Members’ Responses When Asked For Their Overall Impression Of This Method Of Sorting Out Family Difficulties.
Family members made a number of comments about FGCs some of which contained suggestions about how they could be improved;
“I think it’s a ver good idea if families are willing to do it – its very good to keep it in the family and sort things out that way”
“It was us – basically it was these two families agreeing on what they needed. The social worker and (Co-ordinators) were just there to get it going – but it was us that had the last word basically which was a good thing – it was the family’s meeting”
“What they need to do about these meetings is have more of them”
“You should be kept informed of what’s happening after the meeting. We put in a lot of effort and went out of our way to help and we still worry about the kids. You were asked to help and you were fine when you were needed but whenever you’re not needed you’re just shunted out”
29
“Its good to sort things out with the family so that you can get down to the real hard-core, nitty-gritty things”
“Its definitely a good idea to get the family together – it worked in our situation and its still working”
“The family should get back together again about six months later to see how things are going and if things are still in place”
“You need to receive clear information at the beginning and get things in writing before the meeting”
“When they left us alone as a family I think there should have been somebody there to intervene and say, look hold on, just stop it there”
“The way the organisers handled it made it a little more relaxing than going to a case conference with a chairman and you’re walking in and there are a dozen people there, scrutinising you, all armed with the information that you haven’t got until just before the meeting”
“The way it was conducted was less austere, less official than a case conference”
“I have a lot of respect for the people who organised it, especially after hours. I just think it’s a good idea and it seems to be well organised”
“In principle it’s a very good idea and it should be advertised more as an option”
3.3: AFTER THE FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCE:
Information-Givers;
The information-givers were asked what they thought would have happened in the case if there had not been an FGC. Their comments are presented below;
The family would have continued to hide how serious their situation was and the children would have suffered more as a result"
“The children would have been in care a lot sooner. A placement was found for the oldest child with a member of the family – this may not have happened”
“The situation would have drifted and continued – the FGC was a positive catalyst for change”
“The family would have continued in the mode of blaming Social Services”
“Child protection procedures would have been initiated much sooner. The children would have gone into foster / residential care rather than family care which they did, many months after the FGC”
“The plans for the children may have taken longer to work out and agree”
30
“The agency may not have been given such a clear indication of the family’s understanding of the concerns / risks”
The information-givers were asked to comment on the outcome of the FGC for the child/ren concern. Their responses are displayed in Figure 15;
Figure 15: Information-Givers’ Responses When Asked What The Outcome Of The FGC Had Been For The Child/ren Concerned.
“All the children are now looked after by family and friends”
“The children raised worries and told relatives things that had been kept secret”
“It provided a family placement”
“The situation deteriorated rapidly and the children removed themselves into a family placement”
“The physical care of the children improved significantly after the FGC”
“Plans for the rehabilitation of the children are well underway”
1 information-givers described the attitude towards FGCs within their agency as very favourable, six as favourable, and two were unsure. All were clear that they wanted the Trust’s FGC project to continue and made the following comments / suggestions;
“I think it is a very good idea and would like to see it run on a regular basis”
“Perhaps part of the FGC could involve outlining to the family tools and advice on how they could / should make decisions for themselves”
“I feel it would be useful to introduce it at an earlier stage”“I think most families would benefit from an FGC but worries over what it actually is need to be addressed. Maybe a video or something to take the worry out of it. Most families can only relate to case conferences and see this as an extension”
“I would like to see it become a permanent feature of service delivery”
31
“I would like to see FGCs develop as a normal part of our service and something we should be able to offer to all our clients”
“That it be made available within the Trust with speedier access”
“Speedy response to referrals, new facilitators”
“The FGC is a worthwhile and effective way of working with families and should continue to be promoted more forcefully”
“Clarity about those situations where it is likely to be most effective – it is not a panacea for all ills”
Family Members;
Family members generally felt that the professionals were supportive of the family’s plan. Eight felt that they were fully supportive of it and four felt that they were supportive of it in part. Figure 16 displays family members’ responses when asked if the professionals made the resources needed to implement the family’s plan available;
Figure 16: Family Members’ Responses When Asked If The Resources Needed To Implement The Family’s Plan Were Made Available.
“It took a long time to get money sorted out for practical things, stair gates, etc. and we ended up buying some stuff for the family ourselves because it was taking so long”
“Yes, everything they promised was provided although some things took longer than others to arrange”
“They agreed to pay for respite once per month but later decided to reduce this and I ended up with nothing”“I had to buy a lot of things for (children) when they stayed with me. I was reimbursed for some things and the social worker asked me to keep receipts for everything else which I did, but nothing ever happened about this”
“I had been told there would be financial help available but, when it came to the bit, it never happened”
32
“The plan was taken to a case conference but they couldn’t put some of the things that were agreed in place. The social worker’s bosses should have been there (at the FGC) to agree this all at the time”
4.0: CONCLUSIONS:
The Family Group Conference Pilot Project in the Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust has been an important and innovative development and one which is clearly valued by both the family members and professionals who participated in this evaluation. The options for the future of the project are as follows;
33
1. Discontinuation,
2. Maintenance at current level,
3. Expansion
Given the success of the project to date, as well as the support for it amongst professionals and family members alike, options 1 and 2 should be rejected and option 3 pursued. In effect this evaluation is confirming a decision already taken by the Family and Child Care Programme in UCHT to expand the Family Group Conference Project. They have recently appointed a number of independent co-ordinators and plan to hold eighteen conferences during the current year. There is obviously a great deal of commitment to the project and indeed the Family Group Conference approach within the Trust and it is hoped that funding can be obtained in order to allow expansion to take place.
On the basis of this evaluation I put forward the following suggestions for practice and further research for the Trust’s consideration;
Practice;
1. Co-ordinators, information-givers, and family members all need clear information before an FGC is held. I would therefore suggest that consideration be given to the information needs of these three groups and appropriate materials designed to accommodate these. This includes information about the FGC as well as information about the family situation which will be the focus of the FGC. It may be appropriate to set up a working party to consider these issues with representation from all three groups.
2. Linked to the above point, consideration should be given to standardising the information given to Co-ordinators and family members about the family situation prior to the FGC. It may be useful to design a format for the social worker’s report which would be completed in all cases and would form the basis of their presentation to the family at the conference. This report would be supplied to the Co-ordinator before contact with the family and would be shared with other family members, with the parents’ / carers’ consent, prior to the FGC.
3. Consideration should be given to holding referral meetings between the Co-ordinator, Social Worker, Senior Social worker and a representative from the Project Steering Group. This would allow for roles and responsibilities to be clarified, for initial discussion and information sharing, and for the case to be scrutinised to ensure that the Family Group Conference approach would be appropriate.
4. Family members require clear information about the resources and help available. This should always be a feature of the information-giving stage of the conference and should be detailed in writing (e.g. in the social worker’s report).
5. Families should be made aware that they can request that the Co-ordinator, one of the information-givers, or an independent person chosen by themselves can remain during the private family time if they feel this is necessary and would not inhibit discussion.
6. Parents / carers should be encouraged and assisted to think about their expectations of the FGC and what they want to get out of it. It may be appropriate for the social worker to assist
34
parents / carers to make a presentation to the family group (verbal or written) outlining this during the information-giving stage.
7. Consideration needs to be given on a case-by-case basis as to what professionals should be invited to the FGC to ensure that the family group have access to as much information as possible, and the ability to clarify this, before making a plan.
8. Consideration needs to be given to keeping family members informed of developments after the FGC and procedures developed for this which take account of the wishes of parents / carers. It would be appropriate to ensure that all family members present at the FGC, as well as all the professionals involved with the family, receive a copy of the plan. It may also be appropriate to offer a review FGC as a matter of course.
Research;
1. Basic data should be collected on each individual FGC held (e.g. number of children in family, type of case, family members in attendance and their relationship to the child/ren, professionals attending, venue, length of conference and of private family time, outcome, etc).
2. Research examining children’s experience of the FGC approach and their participation in such meetings.
3. Research examining the outcomes of FGCs compared to other decision-making meetings, e.g. case conferences.
APPENDIX 1
35
EVALUATION OF U.C.H.T.FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCE PILOT PROJECT
Questionnaire for Co-ordinators
FGC No: _______________
FAMILY NAME: _______________
DATE OF FGC: _______________
SECTION 1: INFORMATION RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE FGC:
1. Did you feel that the information you were given about the case prior to the FGC was;(tick appropriate box and comment in the space below e.g. what other information would you have liked?) Very Adequate
Adequate O.K. Inadequate Very Inadequate
SECTION 2: CONTACT WITH THE FAMILY PRIOR TO THE FGC:
2. When you first made contact with the family, how well prepared had they been
36
concerning the process of the conference?(tick appropriate box for each category of person contacted and comment in the space below)
Child(ren) Mother Father Relatives Step-Parents Others
Very Well Prepared
Well Prepared
Not Well Prepared
Not At All Prepared
NOT APPLICABLE
3. When you first contacted the family what were their initial reactions to the idea of an FGC?(tick appropriate box for each category of person contacted and comment in the space below)
Child(ren) Mother Father Relatives Step-Parents Others
Very Favourable
Favourable
Neither Favourable Nor Unfavourable
Unfavourable
Very Unfavourable
NOT APPLICABLE
SECTION 3: ARRANGING THE FGC:
4. How easy was it to arrange the FGC from the family’s point of view? Very Easy(tick appropriate box) Quite Easy
37
Quite Difficult Very Difficult
5. How easy was it to arrange the FGC from the professionals’ point of view? Very Easy Quite Easy Quite Difficult Very Difficult
6. How easy was it to arrange the FGC from a practical point of view, e.g. suitable venue, time? Very Easy
Quite Easy Quite Difficult Very Difficult
7. Are there any other comments you wish to make about arranging the FGC?(please comment in the space below)
SECTION 4: THE FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCE:
8. Did you feel that overall this FGC was; Very Good(tick appropriate box) Good
O.K.
38
Poor Very Poor
9. How would you rate the family’s commitment during the FGC? Very Committed(tick appropriate box and comment in the space below) Committed
Not Very Committed Not At All Committed
10. Overall would you rate the degree of friendliness at the FGC as; Very Friendly(tick appropriate box and comment in the space below) Friendly
Not Very Friendly Not At All Friendly
11. Did you feel that the family used the FGC; Very Well(tick appropriate box and comment in the space below) Well
Not So Well Not At All
12. When the family called you back and told you their plan, did you feel that they had addressed the issues presented by the information-givers; Fully(tick appropriate box) Quite Well
Not Very Well Not At All
13. How satisfied were you with the plan? Very Satisfied(tick appropriate box and comment in the space below) Satisfied
Unsure Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied
39
14. Please describe the child/ren’s role during the FGC:(comment in the space below)
15. Would you rate the FGC as having been child focused? Very Much(tick appropriate box and comment in the space below) Quite
Not Very Not At All
16. Do you feel that the family was provided with enough information to make decisions on their own? Yes(tick appropriate box and comment in the space below) No
Unsure
17. Do you think the information was presented in a way the family could understand it, so they were able to make their decisions? Yes(tick appropriate box and comment in the space below) No
Unsure
40
18. Are there any other comments you would like to make about this FGC?(please comment in the space below)
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COMPLETE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX 2
21st December 1999.
41
Dear Colleague,
Re: Evaluation of U.C.H.T. Family Group Conference Pilot Project.
As you are aware a Family Group Conference (FGC) Pilot Project was established in the Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust in May 1998. A number of conferences have now been held and the Trust is keen to evaluate this new way of working. I have been engaged to assist with this process.
Sam Allison and Catherine McCambridge (Co-ordinators), who have facilitated the FGCs held within the Trust to date, gave your name to me. As one of the few professionals who has attended an FGC in the role of “information giver” your views are particularly important and I would therefore be grateful if you could complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it to me in the envelope provided by Friday 7 th January 2000.
Your views will be treated in the strictest confidence and there is no need for you to give your name unless you wish to do so. The questionnaire should only take approximately 30 minutes to complete and, as there are so few professionals who have attended an FGC to date, I would greatly appreciate your response.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss any issues and thank you in anticipation of your reply,
Yours Sincerely,
David Hayes,
Telephone: 01232 370630 (Work).
EVALUATION OF U.C.H.T.FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCE PILOT PROJECT
Questionnaire for Information – Givers
42
SECTION 1:
1. Please state your job title. ________________________
2. Please give the name of the organisation you work for. ________________________
3. How many Family Group Conferences have you attended? ________________________
Please answer the following questions in relation to the FIRST Family Group Conference (FGC) which you attended as an information – giver.
SECTION 2: BEFORE THE FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCE:
4. How well did you know about Family Group Conferences before you attended this one? Very well(tick appropriate box) Quite well
Not Very Well Not At All
5. Had you any training about Family Group Conferences? Yes (please give details below)(tick appropriate box) No
6. In your agency, how would you rate the overall attitude to Family Group Conferences? Very Favourable(tick appropriate box and explain / give reasons for your Favourableanswer in the space below) Unsure
Unfavourable Very Unfavourable
43
7. Did you find that producing the information for the Family Group Conference was significantly different from the reports you have produced for child protection conferences? Yes(tick appropriate box and explain / give reasons for your Noanswer in the space below) Have Not Written A Report For A
Child Protection Conference
8. How did you see your role at the Family Group Conference?(please comment in the space below)
9. How convenient (in terms of time and venue) was it for you to attend the Family Group Conference? Very Convenient(tick appropriate box and explain / give reasons for your Quite Convenientanswer in the space below) Neither Convenient or
Inconvenient Quite Inconvenient Very Inconvenient
SECTION 3: THE FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCE:
10 Did you feel that overall this Family Group Conference was: Very Good(tick appropriate box) Good
O.K. Poor Very Poor
44
11 Do you think that the family were provided with enough information to make decisions on their own? Yes(tick appropriate box and explain / give reasons for your Noanswer in the space below) Unsure
12 Do you think the information was presented in a way the family could understand it, so they were able to make their decisions? Yes(tick appropriate box and explain / give reasons for your Noanswer in the space below) Unsure
13 Overall would you rate the degree of friendliness in the Family Group Conference as: Very Friendly(tick appropriate box and please make any other comments Friendlyyou would like about the degree of friendliness during the Not Very Friendlytime you were at the conference in the space below) Not At All Friendly
14 Did you feel the family used the Family Group Conference: Very Well(please make any other comments you would like about the Wellfamily’s abilities to make use of the conference during the Not So Welltime you were present in the space below) Not At All
45
15 How would you rate the family’s commitment to the Family Group Conference during the time you were present? Very Committed(tick appropriate box and please make any other comments Committedyou would like about the family’s commitment in the space Not Very Committedbelow) Not At All Committed
16 Please describe the child/ren’s role during the time you were at the Family Group Conference;(please comment in the space below)
17 How did you feel about leaving the family alone to discuss the issues that had been presented at the conference?(please comment in the space below)
SECTION 4: INFORMATION ABOUT THE FGC:
18 What information did you have about the Family Group Conference beforehand?(tick all relevant boxes)
Practice Guidance for Referring Professionals
Practice Guidance for Introducing FGCs to Children and
46
Young People
Information on how FGCs Interface with Child Protection Procedures
Guidance for Families on FGCs
Had no Information About FGCs Beforehand
19 Did you find this information helpful?(please comment in the space below)
20 Is there any other information / guidance you feel would be helpful to receive on Family Group Conferences?(please comment in the space below)
SECTION 5: OVERALL IMPRESSIONS:
21 Overall how satisfied were you with the plan drawn up by the family? Very Satisfied(tick appropriate box and explain / give reasons for your Satisfiedanswer in the space below) Unsure
Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied
47
22 Would you rate the Family Group Conference as having been child focused? Very Much(tick appropriate box and explain / give reasons for your Quiteanswer in the space below) Not Very
Not At All
23 Do you feel that the FGC differs significantly from child protection conferences you have been to? Yes(tick appropriate box and explain / give reasons for your Noanswer in the space below) Have not Attended a Child
Protection Conference
24 Please describe your reactions during the time you were at the Family Group Conference:(please comment in the space below)
25 What did you feel were the positive aspects of this Family Group Conference?(please comment in the space below)
48
26 What did you feel were the negative aspects of this Family Group Conference?(please comment in the space below)
27 What do you think would have happened in this case if there had not been a Family Group Conference?(please comment in the space below)
28 Were there any particular issues that this Family Group Conference raised for you?(please comment in the space below)
29 What has the outcome of the FGC been for the child/ren concerned? Very Positive(tick appropriate box and explain / give reasons for your Positiveanswer in the space below) Neither Positive or Negative
Negative Very Negative
49
30 Are there any other comments you would like to make about this Family Group Conference?(please comment in the space below)
31 How would you like to see the U.C.H.T. Family GroupConference pilot project develop?(please comment in the space below)
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COMPLETE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX 3
5th January 2000.
50
Dear Colleague,
Re: Evaluation of U.C.H.T. Family Group Conference Pilot Project.
You may recall that I recently sent you a questionnaire in relation to the above. If you have completed and returned the questionnaire please disregard this letter and accept my thanks.
If you have not completed the questionnaire I would be grateful if you could do so as I feel that the views of professionals who have attended Family Group Conferences are vital to this evaluation. The small group of people involved (11 in total) make it desirable to obtain as full a response as possible.
Another copy of the questionnaire and a stamped – addressed envelope are enclosed for your convenience.
Thank you for your assistance and co-operation,
Yours Sincerely,
David Hayes,
Telephone: 01232 370630 (Work).
APPENDIX 4
EVALUATION OF U.C.H.T.FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCE PILOT PROJECT
51
Interview Schedule for Family Members
Research Reference No: __________
Relationship to Child / Children: __________
A: BEFORE THE FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCE:
1. When you first heard about Family Group Conferences, what were you told?
2. Who told you?
3. What information did you receive about Family Group Conferences before the meeting?
4. Was the information clear? Yes In Parts No
5. Was the information enough? Yes In Parts No
6. Any comments, e.g. what other information would you have liked?
7. What did you feel about being asked to join in a Family Group Conference?
8. What did you expect to get from the Family Group Conference?
9. Did you receive any written information from the social worker based on their assessment and concerns for the child / children before the conference? Yes
No
If Yes – was this helpful? Yes No
If No – would you have liked information before the conference? Yes No
52
Don’t Know
10. Did you discuss what may take place at the Family Group Conference with the child / children concerned? Yes
No
11. When the Co-ordinator first contacted you was this: In Person By Telephone By Letter
12. At this first contact with the Co-ordinator, what were your feelings about the idea of a Family Group Conference? Very Favourable
Favourable Unfavourable Neither Favourable or Unfavourable
13. Did the time arranged for the Family Group Conference suit you? Yes No
14. Were you consulted about the time? Yes No
15. Please comment on the suitability of the time chosen for the meeting:
16. Did the place arranged for the Family Group Conference suit you? Yes No
17. Were you consulted about the place? Yes No
18. Please comment on the suitability of the place chosen for the meeting:
B: THE START OF THE FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCE:(At the beginning of the meeting the Co-ordinator asked various people to give information)
19. How do you feel this part of the meeting was handled / went?
20. How did the presence of the child / children affect this part of the meeting?
53
21. Was there an opportunity for members of the family, including the child / children, to speak if they wanted to? Yes
Some People No Don’t Know
22. Who didn’t have an opportunity to speak?
23. Did you feel able to ask any questions you wanted to? Yes Some Questions No Don’t Know
24. What sort of questions did you not feel able to ask?
25. Did you feel comfortable in this part of the meeting? Yes, All Of The Time Some Of The Time No Don’t Know
26. What made you feel comfortable / uncomfortable?
27. Do you think you were given the information you needed to know in order to help draw up a family plan? Yes, All
Would Have Liked More No Useful Information Given
28. What other information, if any, would you have liked?
C: THE PRIVATE PART OF THE FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCE:(After the first part of the meeting where people gave you information, the family were left alone to discuss in private and draw up a family plan)
29. Was it made clear what the family had to do once the Co-ordinator and other people had left the family on their own? Yes
No
30. What would have helped to make this all clearer to you?
54
31. What comments would you like to make about being left to discuss things in private and draw up a plan?
32. When making a plan did you feel that you had enough information about the resources and help available? Yes
No
If No – what other information did you feel that you needed?
33. Had you decided what you wanted to say? Yes No
34. Did you feel you were able to put forward your views? Yes, Very Well Quite A Bit A Little Bit No, Not At All
35. What would have helped you?
36. Did you feel that other family members listened to your views? Yes, Very Well Quite A Bit A Little Bit No, Not At All
37. Did you feel that your opinions were seen as important by other family members? Yes, Very Much
Quite A Bit A Little Bit No, Not At All
38. Was it easier or more difficult to talk in private with the family without any professional workers present? Easier
Didn’t Make Any Difference More Difficult
39. Did any problems come up in the private family discussions as a result of the professionals not being present? Yes
No
If Yes – what were they?
55
40. How did the presence of the child / children affect this part of the meeting?
D: PRESENTING AND AGREEING THE PLAN:(In this part of the Family Group Conference the family presented their plan to the Co-ordinator and other professionals for their agreement)
41. What did you feel about the plan that the family drew up? Very Happy Quite Happy Undecided Quite Unhappy Very Unhappy
42. Were your views included in the plan that was drawn up? Yes, Fully Quite A Lot A Little Bit No, Not At All
43. How do you feel this part of the conference was handled?
44. Was there an opportunity for family members to speak if they wanted to? Yes, All Some People No Don’t Know
45. Did you feel able to ask any questions you wanted to? Yes Some Questions No Don’t Know
46. Did you feel comfortable in this part of the meeting? Yes, All Of The Time Some Of The Time No Don’t Know
47. Did you feel that the family’s plan was given a fair hearing? Yes No Don’t Know
If No – why do you feel this?
48. Did the professionals make the resources that you needed to implement the plan available to you? Yes, Fully
56
In Part No, Not At All Resources Not Needed
49. Did you feel that the professionals were supportive of the family’s plan? Yes In Part No Don’t Know
E: OVERALL IMPRESSIONS:
50. Did you get what you were expecting from the Family Group Conference? Yes In Parts No
51. Did you feel that the right family members were invited to the meeting? Yes No Don’t Know
If No – who do you think should have been invited that wasn’t?
52. Which family members should not have been invited?
53. Do you think the right professional workers were invited to the meeting? Yes No Don’t Know
If No – which professionals should have been invited?
54. Which professional workers, if any, should not have been invited?
55. Do you feel that your part in the Family Group Conference was appreciated? Yes, A Lot Yes, A Bit Not Really Not At All Don’t Know
56. Which parts of the Family Group Conference did you feel satisfied with?
57. Which parts of the Family Group Conference did you feel dissatisfied with?
58. What is your overall impression of this method of sorting out family
57
difficulties? Very GoodGood In Parts Neither Good Or Bad Bad In Parts Very Bad
59. Please make any other comments you may have about Family Group Conferences:
60. Please make any other comments you may have about the best way families could be helped to sort out their difficulties:
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND HELPING WITH THIS PROJECT
58