View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Value of Family Welfare Conferencing within the Child Protection and Welfare System

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Value of Family Welfare Conferencing within the Child Protection and Welfare System
Language: English
Authors: Devaney, Carmel, Byrne, Paul
Source: Child Care in Practice. 2015 21(4):340-356.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2015
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Child Welfare, Child Safety, Welfare Services, Childhood Needs, Family Environment, Family Role, Models, Social Work, Mixed Methods Research, Questionnaires, Interviews, Foreign Countries, Statistical Analysis, Cooperative Planning
Geographic Terms: Ireland
DOI: 10.1080/13575279.2015.1027173
ISSN: 1357-5279
Abstract: The Family Welfare Conference (FWC) is a model used within the child protection and welfare services to address concerns about the needs of children and their family's ability to respond to these needs. The FWC model operates in partnership with family members, who participate in identifying both the issues of concern and potential responses to address these. The core premise of the FWC model involves greater engagement by family members in the process of responding to matters connected to their children's protection and welfare. This paper presents the findings of a research study on the value placed on the FWC model by social workers working in a statutory child protection and welfare department in the Republic of Ireland. A mixed-methods study was employed with social workers asked to complete an anonymous questionnaire and to participate in a face-to-face interview. The main findings highlight the value of the FWC as a model of relationship-based practice, with participation and partnership with family members viewed as crucial elements. The particular strengths identified in the model include the relationship that is established and developed between the FWC coordinator and the family members, the decision-making methods engaged in by families, and the increased understanding of the issues involved by virtue of participation within the FWC process. The place of the FWC within child protection and welfare services is considered in light of these findings, with an overall positive viewpoint presented.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 57
Entry Date: 2015
Accession Number: EJ1084924
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwESkK0Ej8WVV4sHGfGWy1BWAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFXwnM4ELoyFBZxcMwIBEICBmtIiFWM8ttUEQlbZ463nKQ_4YtL5Xy4NDIopcLzhqGNA_TeFXy08RISeuelIIL_RG_A4TzIAZW82VeXp9Xw9sw6bByu5rAS9-O1u2p6ubCXm9V2cbE1fUcdoXAdJl0NPtXPvnjYCQ4EAyPMeRDfUmepHts0sWACYeQCiK1PvpG6cHbm1W2l5yh3Uz3UTYEwPXQAjTVEs6XPGfWQ=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0111728910;j2301oct.15;2019Mar06.12:48;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0111728910-1">The Value of Family Welfare Conferencing within the Child Protection and Welfare System. </title> <p>The Family Welfare Conference (FWC) is a model used within the child protection and welfare services to address concerns about the needs of children and their family's ability to respond to these needs. The FWC model operates in partnership with family members, who participate in identifying both the issues of concern and potential responses to address these. The core premise of the FWC model involves greater engagement by family members in the process of responding to matters connected to their children's protection and welfare. This paper presents the findings of a research study on the value placed on the FWC model by social workers working in a statutory child protection and welfare department in the Republic of Ireland. A mixed-methods study was employed with social workers asked to complete an anonymous questionnaire and to participate in a face-to-face interview. The main findings highlight the value of the FWC as a model of relationship-based practice, with participation and partnership with family members viewed as crucial elements. The particular strengths identified in the model include the relationship that is established and developed between the FWC coordinator and the family members, the decision-making methods engaged in by families, and the increased understanding of the issues involved by virtue of participation within the FWC process. The place of the FWC within child protection and welfare services is considered in light of these findings, with an overall positive viewpoint presented.</p> <p>Keywords: Family Welfare Conference; Participation; Relationships; Child Welfare and Protection</p> <hd id="AN0111728910-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Working within the area of child protection and welfare is a challenging and complex task for social work practitioners. Families can be viewed as the cause of and solution to child protection concerns, a dichotomy that is not easily remedied. Increasingly within child protection and welfare services there are pressures on practitioners to be accountable and responsive while also inclusive of families with particular attention to the rights of the child (Munro, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref1">43</reflink>]; Report of the Task Force on Child and Family Support Agency, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref2">52</reflink>]). The most recent national policy in the Republic of Ireland on children, The Agenda for Children's Services, accents the need for a shared style of working that recognises the value of partnership between families, children, the community and professionals (Office of the Minister for Children, Department of Health and Children, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref3">47</reflink>], p. 23). However, it is also noted that this is not always achievable due to conflicting priorities (Brown, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref4">10</reflink>]). One means of achieving this goal of participation within the child protection and welfare system is through Family Welfare Conferencing.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>]</p> <p>This paper presents the findings of a research study on the value placed on the Family Welfare Conference (FWC) model by social workers working in a statutory child protection and welfare department in the Republic of Ireland. The main findings reflect on the value of the FWC as a means of relationship-based practice, participation and partnership with family members. The model as applied in this context is described, followed by an overview of some of the research completed on the FWC in practice and relevant literature on its role in child protection and welfare services. The findings of this mixed-methods study are then presented and discussed in terms of their implications for practice.</p> <hd id="AN0111728910-3">Family Welfare Conferencing</hd> <p>Family Welfare Conferencing is a relatively new and innovative means of engaging in participatory practice with families. The FWC is a decision-making meeting where the family are the primary decision-makers. It is arranged and facilitated by an independent coordinator. In this context "family" is defined broadly, to include the child, parents, extended family and significant others. At the conference the family are given "private time" to produce their plan for the care and protection of the child or young person. The process aims to make use of the family's strengths and resources, and seeks to respect each family's own values and culture. The only record of the discussions at a FWC is the Family Plan, which is created by the family on the day.</p> <p>The model is strengths based and solution focused; in practice it provides a realistic approach to partnership between families and professionals (Fox, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref6">20</reflink>]; Hayes, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref7">23</reflink>]). As Davis ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref8">14</reflink>]) emphasises, partnership involves including the views of family members with a need for dialogue between parents, children and service providers to ensure no one professional defines children's problems or the solutions to their life issues. The FWC process looks to empower the family by facilitating the transfer of decision-making to them, with one of the key objectives being to "tap into" the family's unique informal knowledge and support. The model is seen to enhance participation and to reduce alienation and powerlessness for families (Healy, Darlington, & Yellowlees, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref9">25</reflink>]). The core belief of this approach is that in giving families the correct information, advice and support, they are capable of making effective, safe decisions about the welfare of their children. Professional support and expertise is used to supplement the family's resources. This approach entails a focus on need as identified by family members, as opposed to the needs identified by practitioners, and recognises the role and strengths of the family in both identifying and meeting their needs (Dolan & Holt, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref10">15</reflink>]). The needs of children should determine the extent and nature of services provided to them (Barlow & Schrader McMillan, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>]; Allen, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref12">1</reflink>]; Munro, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref13">42</reflink>]). It must be noted that the FWC model represents a considerable shift in attitude towards how families are perceived and challenges the traditional role played by professionals as decision-makers (Brown, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref14">9</reflink>], p. 338).</p> <p>This approach aligns with an overall welfare system that is supportive in its nature, as opposed to punitive. Systems with a supportive orientation emphasise prevention and the early provision of support services and work in solidarity with parents within a broad system of universally available welfare services (Lonne, Parton, Thompson, & Harries, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref15">31</reflink>]). The FWC model takes a strengths-based approach and creates a more reciprocal relationship between the family and service providers (Berzin et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref16">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>In Ireland, the FWC operates as part of the statutory child protection and welfare services and has legislative backing under the Children Act 2001, and statutory regulations governing the model were issued in 2004. The regulations state that the welfare of the child should be the first and paramount consideration in relation to the convening, proceedings, invites and recommendations of the conference. So far as is reasonably practicable, the wishes of children should be given due consideration at all stages (Government of Ireland, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref17">22</reflink>]). The FWC coordinator and manager are employed as part of the statutory child protection and welfare team.</p> <hd id="AN0111728910-4">The Family Welfare Conference Process</hd> <p>There are five key stages to the FWC process, each of equal importance.</p> <hd id="AN0111728910-5">Stage One: Referral</hd> <p>The FWC is a voluntary process with families consenting to the referral. A referral meeting is first organised involving the FWC team and the referrer. This meeting clarifies the reason for referral, the history of agency involvement, the child protection and welfare concerns, the strengths of the family and the resources available.</p> <p>The "Bottom-Line", an intrinsic component of the FWC model, is also clarified at this point. This involves the referrer outlining the minimum a family must achieve in their Family Plan in order for the referrer to approve this Plan. The "Bottom-Line" sets the limits of negotiable activity, which allow the professional to "step back" and allow the family to make decisions knowing that they can veto the plan if it does not address their concerns. From this meeting a Referral Report is drafted to share the above information with all involved.</p> <hd id="AN0111728910-6">Stage Two: Preparation</hd> <p>The FWC coordinator then meets with all family members and professionals involved. Family members are met individually, which affords them opportunity to fully understand the purpose and concerns, and also to consider the level of support they can offer. The coordinator meets with the child or young person to prepare them for attending and participating at the FWC. If they cannot attend, the coordinator makes sure that their views are shared at the FWC. The preparation is vital to ensure that all involved are aware of the process, are clear about their roles and responsibilities prior, during and post conference (Mirsky, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref18">37</reflink>]). Advocates will be provided for children and adults (when necessary) to ensure participation. The conferences are held in neutral venues to ensure no imbalance of power, with refreshments provided, which is seen to be important (Huntsman, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref19">27</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0111728910-7">Stage Three: Information Sharing</hd> <p>The coordinator chairs and facilitates the meeting. Introductions and ground rules are established before the information sharing begins. Information sharing involves the relevant professionals explaining their role, concerns and what they would like to see achieved. The model makes maximum use of the knowledge, commitment, resources and strengths of families and at the same time ensures that the family's thinking and planning is informed by the professional's specialist knowledge and skills (Connolly, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref20">12</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0111728910-8">Stage Four: Private Family Time</hd> <p>At this stage the coordinator and the professionals withdraw, leaving the family to plan in private. The family must agree a plan that addresses the needs of the children, a contingency plan and who will monitor the plan. Private family time is an important principle in FWCs that is both a distinctive and essential characteristic of the model (Thomas, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref21">56</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0111728910-9">Stage Five: Agreeing the Family Plan</hd> <p>Once the family are ready, the coordinator and the referrer re-join the meeting and the Family Plan is presented to them. One of the key principles comes into effect; that is, the referrer accepts the plan unless it places the child at further risk (Hayes, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref22">23</reflink>]). The plan is written up by the coordinator, distributed to all participants and operates for one year from the date of the meeting. A review meeting is agreed upon usually between six and 12 weeks later. This is essential because it allows the family and professionals to track progress and make any necessary amendments. The responsibility for monitoring the plan rests mainly with the family, giving ownership. The referrer also continues to work with the family, supporting them with the plan and ensuring it meets the requirements of the agency involved (Brady, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref23">6</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0111728910-10">An Evidence Base for the Family Welfare Conference</hd> <p>A review of the international research suggests that in the majority of instances the FWC is an effective model that is valued by families and professionals (Marsh & Crow, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref24">33</reflink>]; Pennell & Burford, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref25">50</reflink>]; Sundell & Vinnerljung, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref26">54</reflink>]; Frost, Abram, & Burgess, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref27">21</reflink>]). Critics have, however, argued that the bulk of the research carried out has been too small scale, focused on the process and implementation of the model (Berzin, Cohen, Thomas, & Dawson, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref28">4</reflink>]) rather than on long-term outcomes (Sundell & Vinnerljung, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref29">54</reflink>]). Nonetheless, much of the published research has indicated positive results in many areas, which are presented.</p> <p>Marsh and Crow ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref30">33</reflink>]) found strong support for the model from family members involved, with the vast majority able to develop plans that addressed the referrer's concerns. Kiely ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref31">29</reflink>]) reports on a longitudinal project from Australia that compared outcomes for families who participated in FWCs with similar families who were subject to traditional planning processes, up to five years after the conference was held. The outcomes were very positive and included an increase in extended family placements for the FWC children, a reduction in temporary care orders, and a reduction in reports to statutory services post the FWC. However, Berzin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>]) in their randomised control study found that the results did not indicate a more positive outcome for children receiving the FWC compared with traditional services. This mirrors the findings of Sundell and Vinnerljung's ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref33">54</reflink>]) study that, after a three-year period, compared FWC outcomes with children who availed of traditional services. Critics have also questioned the participatory nature of the model with a concern that while children are placed at the centre of the model, it is within an emotionally charged, adult-dominated forum (Holland & O'Neill, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref34">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>There have been five significant evaluations of the FWC in the Republic of Ireland since it was first piloted in 1999. The first three-year pilot project was evaluated by O'Brien ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref35">45</reflink>]) and concluded that the model was valued by all stakeholders and was effective at enabling the wider family involvement in planning and decision-making, resulting in more targeted support for the children in need. The second pilot project in Ireland focused on how the model would "fit" within the child protection process (O'Brien, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref36">46</reflink>]). Similar to other studies, it found families were willing participants, the FWC coordinator was instrumental in successful conferences, social workers were identified as important gatekeepers that could potentially encourage and facilitate families to engage in the process, and all stakeholders were highly committed to the process. The evaluation by Kemp ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref37">28</reflink>]) specifically highlighted the model's strength in relation to children in need of care outside the home. It found that the process increased the likelihood of a family placement, stabilised that care through better contact and understanding, and improved the progression of children home. The study elucidates the positive role that the FWC can play when targeted towards specific child welfare and protection concerns.</p> <p>Research by Brady ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref38">6</reflink>]) explored the views of various stakeholders in relation to FWC outcomes, its fit within the child protection and welfare system, process and practice issues, and how social support is activated. The research found that the service was valued by families and professionals alike and was a beneficial means of engaging absent fathers. It also confirmed that the FWC is most valuable in early intervention but can work well for children in care and children subject to child protection investigation. The most recent evaluation was conducted by Brady, Canavan, and Millar ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref39">7</reflink>]), and focused on children on the periphery of care or already in care. The study reinforced Brady's ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref40">6</reflink>]) assertion that the model is most effective in early intervention and children in care. This study reported mixed results but found positive outcomes for children in care.</p> <hd id="AN0111728910-11">Family Welfare Conferencing in Child Protection and Welfare</hd> <p>One of the central aims of the FWC identified in the literature is developing new ways for families to engage with the child protection and welfare system that encourages greater cooperation and consensus-based decision-making (Marsh & Crow, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref41">33</reflink>]; Morris & Connolly, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref42">39</reflink>]; O'Brien, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref43">46</reflink>]; Pennell, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref44">49</reflink>]). The use of the FWC in child protection and welfare services has been researched widely.</p> <p>At an overall level, Hayes describes the FWC model as "a radical new approach to involving families in the decision making process in Child Care Social Work" (2000, p. 124). He investigated professional views of introducing the FWC into child protection work and found that it was feasible, desirable and preferable to the limited participation of families through child protection systems. Marsh and Crow ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref45">33</reflink>]) found that FWC projects in the United Kingdom faced numerous challenges in trying to introduce the model into child protection practice. Reasons included resistance from some workers, hesitancy to move away from traditional approaches and lack of management support. A number of respondents felt that cases were too high profile and high risk and the model would be better proving its worth on lower threshold cases. O'Brien ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref46">46</reflink>]) lists a number of potential benefits for families by using the FWC in child protection and welfare work. Benefits include that the model is family led, is supported by professionals, strengthens the relationship between family and the statutory services, can move entrenched positions, promotes a sharing of responsibility and risk, highlights available resources and supports family decision-making that complements the duties of the statutory child protection service.</p> <p>Doolan ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref47">16</reflink>]), however, argues that the FWC model is at odds with the dominant social work paradigm and a challenge to power dynamics within the child welfare system. He suggests that the model is congruent with social work values but that they have been suppressed by the adversarial and coercive environment of statutory child protection work. Doolan ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref48">16</reflink>]) believes family participation should be seen as a right and that participation should include sharing of professional knowledge and information, the opportunity for family-led solutions and a right to self-agency that is supported by professionals, all principles espoused by the FWC. Reflecting this view, Morris and Connolly ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref49">39</reflink>]) suggest that family participation is a human right and once this premise is established it is very difficult to argue against family engagement in child welfare processes. They reported on an international review of research relating to family involvement in child welfare and found that "studies describe positive family responses to the processes [of FWC] and repeatedly identify both high satisfaction and enhanced commitment and engagement with care and protection plans" ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref50">39</reflink>], p. 45). They noted that although there was professional resistance to involving families, there was also a growing commitment to involving extended families in decision-making in relation to child welfare.</p> <p>Furthermore, the creation of an effective working relationship is viewed as a critical ingredient in effective support services (Munford & Sanders, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref51">40</reflink>]). The relationship is where the work takes place and where change can be attempted, with the helping alliance that is forged critical in the change process (Munford & Sanders, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref52">41</reflink>]). Research has indicated that parents appreciate a relationship with workers that is based on honesty and kindness, and where they are prepared to go the "extra mile" for them (Dale, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref53">13</reflink>]; Munro, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref54">42</reflink>]), and that there is a need to return to relationship-based practice (Brandon & Thoburn, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref55">8</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0111728910-12">Methodology</hd> <p>The overall aim of the research on which this paper is based was to examine the potential of the FWC model within social work practice. To comprehensively answer the objectives of this study a mixed-methods approach was employed. The data were collected concurrently with questionnaires initially administered to social work practitioners followed by qualitative interviews. This order was chosen to allow for a broad sense of the population views and experiences that in turn informed the specific areas for exploration in the interviews. A census survey was employed including the full population of social workers working within a child protection and welfare department. An anonymous questionnaire was administered directly to each social worker (<emph>n</emph> = 34), who was also asked to separately provide consent to participate in a face-to-face interview.</p> <p>To meet the primary aim of the research to garner perspectives from social work practitioners on the value of the FWC model, semi-structured interviews were chosen as the most appropriate method. The semi-structured interviews had the potential to provide a richness of detail focused on participant's knowledge, experience, motivations and interpretations. The data from the questionnaires were initially analysed to ascertain the emerging themes, which then informed an interview guide that was prepared in advance to allow for a more systematic and comprehensive interview which defined the issues investigated (Patton, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref56">48</reflink>]). Interviews were then conducted with consenting social workers that refer families to the FWC service. The interviews took place in the participant's workplace and were arranged at a time to suit them. The interviews lasted for 45 minutes on average. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim by the researchers.</p> <p>A limitation in this study was the exclusion of children's and families' views on their experience of the FWC. Undoubtedly their inclusion would have provided a more comprehensive picture of the value of the FWC service. Similarly, it was not possible to include the perspectives of other disciplines that interact with the FWC service or a wider social work sample, and the research was thus limited to one discipline's viewpoint.</p> <hd id="AN0111728910-13">Data Analysis</hd> <p>The statistical software package SPSS (version 19) was used to run statistical analyses on the survey data. The survey consisted of 18 questions (e.g. "what do you believe are the strengths [if any] of the FWC service?") or statements (e.g. "good preparation with the family for the conference is important"), with each answer or rating being assigned a particular code. Reports were then run on the frequency of responses from participants on each question and sub-question.</p> <p>With regard to the qualitative data the researchers listened to the interview recordings immediately after each interview, making notes of salient themes. The transcribed interviews were read and re-read in order to establish themes and patterns. Content analysis was then carried out on the data, distilling and coding the emerging themes and sub-themes under the objectives of the study.</p> <hd id="AN0111728910-14">Findings</hd> <p>The findings of this research study are based on the completed questionnaires (<emph>n</emph> = 24) and the interviews (<emph>n</emph> = 8) conducted with participants from a child protection and welfare social work department. A total of 24 questionnaires were returned from an overall sample of 34 (an overall response rate of 71%), with eight of these respondents agreeing to participate in a face-to-face interview. The findings presented are based on the thematic analysis of both the quantitative and qualitative data collected.</p> <p>This research finds that the FWC service is well established and highly valued by participants based in a child protection and welfare service. Noteworthy aspects of the findings include the process involved in the delivery of the model including:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> the quality of the preparation for a conference based primarily on the relationship based practice between the coordinator and family members;</item> <p></p> <item> the participation of families in the FWC process; and</item> <p></p> <item> participants' improved understanding of the families' issues and their associated needs.</item> </ulist> <p>Participants also noted a number of reservations about the model, which are presented.</p> <hd id="AN0111728910-15">Preparation for a Family Welfare Conference</hd> <p>There was universal agreement by respondents that comprehensive preparation with the family prior to the FWC is a critical factor in the FWC process. Respondents emphasised that the time the coordinator invests with family members prior to a conference is viewed as vital to successful outcomes. This investment of time allows relationships between the coordinator and the family members to develop. This includes recognition of the complexity of family dynamics involved and the need for thorough exploration of issues with the family. As participants highlighted:</p> <p>The key component is how the whole process is approached. The rapport established between the co-ordinator and the family is essential in setting a positive tone for the process and ensuring it is a good experience. (P1)</p> <p>There needs to be serious time put into the preparation for FWC, in building up a relationship, this takes a serious amount of time and high quality work. (P7)</p> <p>Respondents also noted that the coordinator's approach to families was very significant in terms of the overall process and the outcome. Participants distinguished between social workers being viewed as a threat to families while the coordinator was seen as supportive:</p> <p>The co-ordinator can work with the family in a way social workers cannot, we are seen as the bad guys ... but the co-ordinator is seen as trying to keep the family together, to help the children stay within the family. (P2)</p> <p>Many of the respondents recognised that the independence of the coordinator with a non-social work role facilitated these strong relationships, as highlighted in the following:</p> <p>It goes back to the ground work and that the family have learned to trust the co-ordinator ... so much of the work is done before the FWC and I don't know if enough people appreciate that. (P5)</p> <p>While the preparation and relationship building with families was noted as essential by participants, the time invested in an initial meeting between the FWC coordinator and the social worker was similarly valued. A number of respondents spoke of the importance of the "Bottom-Line" giving them reassurance in the FWC process:</p> <p>I don't think it would work without that [the Bottom-Line] and I think it is one of the most important things about the FWC. (P8)</p> <p>Participants highlighted how this concept of a "Bottom-Line" specifically gave them a sense of confidence in allowing the family to devise their own solutions. Although family members may be the cause of the child protection and welfare concerns, this minimum requirement instilled a sense of security in respondents when supporting the family to identify possible remedies. Participants also welcomed the coordinators reinforcing this requirement throughout the FWC process. The "Bottom-Line" was perceived by participants as providing clarity to families on what was expected from them. Clarity between the coordinator, the referrer and the family members is viewed as an essential component within this process.</p> <p>While recognising that the preparatory time involved is an essential part of preparing for the conference and for the relationship-building process, participants also highlighted their concerns about the length of time between referring a family to the FWC and having a conference. As one respondent noted:</p> <p>Sometimes it can take too long ... from the time the idea to refer comes into my head to the time the family are sitting around the table. (P4)</p> <p>There was consensus that time constraints and the need for quick solutions were a constant pressure for participants due to child protection and welfare work being viewed as "crisis led":</p> <p>It's a process and if we had the time it's the way to go about it but unfortunately usually we don't have the time. (P3)</p> <p>However, there was also recognition that FWC is a methodical process that requires this time period in order to establish relationships and obtain the necessary information to formulate a family plan:</p> <p>It is very time consuming, but you have time in order to get the information so it kind of counterbalances itself. (P2)</p> <hd id="AN0111728910-16">Family Participation</hd> <p>A number of participants emphasised that a key strength of the FWC model is its engagement of families in decision-making. The overarching strengths identified by respondents were that the FWC process is based on identified need, facilitates extended family members' involvement, utilises informal support and is strengths based. Within this group there was universal agreement that the FWC model facilitated the inclusion of the voice of all family members involved. One of the central principles of the FWC approach is working in partnership with families, which allows them to be centrally involved in decision-making. This value was very much espoused by all interview respondents:</p> <p>From the point of view of decision making and giving families an opportunity to have responsibility over the management of problems and coming up with their own solutions it is very good. (P3)</p> <p>The concept of treating family members with respect, giving them a voice and a sense of ownership that leads to greater responsibility for their solutions, was viewed as a central element of the FWC process. As highlighted by one respondent:</p> <p>Family members have gone away feeling like they were important and listened to; if you go away and feel like someone has respect for you ... then it makes you more enthusiastic. (P6)</p> <p>Respondents, however, also highlighted that the voluntary participation of families in the FWC process can be a limitation of the model because it is dependent on families agreeing to engage in the process:</p> <p>It very much relies on the family's willingness to engage, to be honest and on their desire to address all that has been going on for them. (P2)</p> <p>A number of respondents also struggled with the family being allowed have "private family time", a core aspect of the process, preferring instead to be involved in all aspects of the meeting. This could be linked to power issues and not trusting families to come up with solutions on their own:</p> <p>Although social workers are involved, most of the discussions happen without their being present, therefore not giving them the opportunity to explain themselves and listen to what the family have to say. (P14)</p> <p>It was also noted that at times the FWC was not successful because the family did not sustain their commitments made in the family plan:</p> <p>A small minority have been unsuccessful largely due to the lack of buy-in from the families themselves. (P7)</p> <p>Other respondents, however, recognised that the sustainability of family plans was not solely the responsibility of families and if social workers had more time they could give further support to families.</p> <hd id="AN0111728910-17">Understanding of Family Issues</hd> <p>The majority of respondents agreed that they gained a greater understanding of the needs of family members during the FWC that they would not have gained using other fora. Respondents highlighted their appreciation for the insight and understanding the coordinator gains by investing time in building relationships and listening to family members. Many respondents agreed that they felt clearer about family issues and their needs following the FWC process. One participant explained how:</p> <p>FWC just opens your eyes to where these parents are coming from and what their own experience of being parented has been. (P1)</p> <p>There was also almost universal agreement that the understanding of family issues gained by the coordinator is a positive resource for social workers in being able to more accurately assess the needs of the family. Respondents noted how families can be more guarded with social workers:</p> <p>The co-ordinator gets to pick up actually more information on what the issues are than I do. Families see the co-ordinator as a support, someone that is going to help them identify the issues and lay them out on the table. (P6)</p> <p>Another respondent noted that that even if the family plan does not work, the process has not failed because:</p> <p>I say to myself and also hear my colleagues say the FWC service is invaluable in a sense that it does allow us a much better insight or snapshot into the lives of those families and thus into the needs of the child. (P1)</p> <hd id="AN0111728910-18">Discussion: Value of the Family Welfare Conference in Child Protection and Welfare</hd> <p>This research finds that the FWC service is highly valued within child protection and welfare practice. This mirrors the high levels of professional satisfaction with the FWC that have been reported across numerous international studies (Morris, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref57">38</reflink>]; Morris & Connolly, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref58">39</reflink>]; Nixon, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref59">44</reflink>]; Sundell & Vinnerljung, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref60">54</reflink>]; Sundell, Vinnerljung, & Ryburn [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref61">54</reflink>]). Although this is the viewpoint of social work practitioners in one child protection and welfare service only, there is strong support for the FWC model and the process involved in its delivery. Of particular value to participants is the quality of the preparation involved, including the supportive relationship-based approach of the coordinator, the participation of family members in the process and social workers' improved understanding of the families' issues and needs.</p> <p>Collectively the elements in the FWC model act as a catalyst for innovative and participatory solutions that have the potential to respond positively to the identified needs of children. The fact that this service emphasises the involvement of the wider family in the process has been universally applauded. A particular strength of the FWC model is in its partnership approach to working with families involved in the child protection and welfare system. The FWC is viewed as an innovative process that provides a practical framework for family participation. As O'Brien suggests:</p> <p>The FWC is not a simple solution that will resolve a complex issue quickly, but it does offer a model to put into practice the spirit of partnership and inclusivity to truly involve individuals and families in child welfare and protection work. ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref62">44</reflink>], p. 141)</p> <p>Research has shown that families who have experienced collaborations with social work units regard as extremely helpful all the features of a child welfare model, such as attention to their circumstances and to their perspective, not feeling judged, services tailored to their needs, and so forth (Fargion, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref63">17</reflink>]; Mason [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref64">34</reflink>]). This is in contrast to several studies which have identified that families are often fearful of, and damaged by, the authority of the child protection service system (Forrester, Westlake, & Glynn, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref65">19</reflink>]; Platt, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref66">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>The ability of families to engage fully in the process can also be related to the work and approach of the coordinator during the preparation stage. Having a clear understanding of the aims, the concerns and the reasons for the families' involvement in the FWC is crucial for effective participation in the process. Significant attention is paid in the literature to the importance of good preparation to enable full family involvement in the process (Brady, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref67">6</reflink>]; Healy & Darlington, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref68">24</reflink>]; Lupton & Nixon, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref69">32</reflink>]; Marsh & Crow, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref70">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>Research supports the view that if families can be better understood in terms of how they come together to make support plans and devise care arrangements, then this could assist professional understandings of family practices (Morris, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref71">38</reflink>]). The FWC process is shown in this study to be instrumental in ensuring a more accurate and representative view of the needs of family members is obtained by practitioners. A responsive, needs-led service, recognising the differences and unique features within family units and in individual members of a family, is emphasised by respondents. Supporting these findings, research by Healy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref72">25</reflink>]) highlights how partnerships with families based upon a shared commitment to helping families address the challenges they face is vital to building more sustainable child protection systems and to creating better futures for vulnerable children and their families. Reflective of a partnership approach, identifying and responding to each individual child's needs and offering a support service to meet this need that harnesses the strengths and opportunities within the family unit epitomise the FWC approach (Morris & Connolly, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref73">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>One of the ways in which the FWC differs from the traditional approach to child protection is that the process is facilitated by an independent coordinator in an attempt to redress the obvious power imbalances between professionals and families (Frost et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref74">21</reflink>]). Similar to other research, this study finds that the role of the coordinator is a crucial element in the FWC process. It is the coordinator's role to ensure that all parties have their views heard and respected. The coordinator often spends time helping parents and other family members to see their strengths and resources and to believe that their contribution will make a difference. Other studies have found that the approach and skills of the coordinator can be directly attributed to successful outcomes (Merkel-Holguin, Nixon, & Burford, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref75">36</reflink>]; O'Brien [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref76">46</reflink>]; Pennell & Burford, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref77">50</reflink>]). Notwithstanding the complexities involved, the potential for underpinning practice within a respectful relationship is thus highlighted. Engaging effectively with parents requires skilled staff, which is described as the lynchpin of good practice (Lonne, Harries, & Lantz, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref78">30</reflink>]). As Connolly ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref79">11</reflink>], p. 78) notes, a constructive relationship involves an attitude of respect and liking for the parent, an understanding of their point of view, and the ability to establish common ground on which to base an intervention plan that accommodates the needs of the parent as well as the child. Lonne et al. ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref80">30</reflink>]) and Munro ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref81">42</reflink>]) emphasise the need to reorientate the philosophy and guiding principles of child welfare practice and practitioners, with a return to work practices that are relationship based rather than procedurally dominated and "managed" ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref82">42</reflink>], p. 108).</p> <p>However, the balance between protecting children and facilitating family involvement continues to be a challenge for those working in the child protection area (Bell, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref83">3</reflink>]; Pennell & Burford, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref84">50</reflink>]). Ferguson and O'Reilly ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref85">18</reflink>]) emphasise the difficulties in true partnership with parents where there is an unequal power relationship, while Stevenson ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref86">53</reflink>]) considers the possibility of truly working in partnership with parents who have a disability or are suffering from a mental health illness. Family participation in decision-making is complicated by the statutory responsibility shouldered by social workers to prioritise children's safety (Brown, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref87">9</reflink>]). Numerous studies have lamented how professional resistance has stymied the growth of the FWC internationally (Brown, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref88">9</reflink>]; Morris & Connolly, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref89">39</reflink>]; Marsh & Crow, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref90">33</reflink>]). Sundell, Vinnerljung, and Ryburn ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref91">55</reflink>]) found that social workers were supportive about FWCs but were reluctant to share decision-making with families in complex cases of child protection as concern for their professional accountability superseded their desire to use the model.</p> <p>This study, however, highlights that the "Bottom-Line" requirement within the family plan does provide reassurance for participants who are conscious of their statutory responsibility. The findings have elucidated how social workers marry their opposing demands through the reassurance of the "Bottom Line". FWCs ask professionals to carefully consider their understanding of family's capacity to meet their children's needs often at a time when it is their deficits that brought them to professional attention in the first place. This research study and previous research has highlighted the importance of clear "Bottom Lines" from the outset of the process (Brady [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref92">6</reflink>]; Connolly, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref93">25</reflink>]; Healy & Darlington, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref94">24</reflink>]; Kemp, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref95">28</reflink>]). This is in contrast to studies that have highlighted circumstances where although parents are involved in different phases of the intervention process, they seem to be excluded from these moments in which (final) decisions are actually taken (van Houte, Bradt, Vandenbroeck, & Bouverne-De Bie, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref96">57</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0111728910-19">Conclusion</hd> <p>Based on this study it is evident that there are many positive aspects to working with families involved in the child protection and welfare system using the FWC model. A particular strength of this model is in its participatory approach to identifying solutions to the needs of families. The inclusion of family members in the process of identifying areas of concern and possible remedies to these issues is reflective of a partnership approach. Over the past two decades, child protection services internationally have begun to implement models of family participation in child protection decision-making (Morris & Connolly, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref97">39</reflink>]). There can be considerable tensions in the realisation of a participatory ethos in child protection systems and one means of resolving those tensions is through Family Welfare Conferencing. Since its introduction, the FWC has been the subject of considerable scrutiny, systematically evaluated and advocated for by academics, practitioners, managers and families (Morris, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref98">38</reflink>]). The FWC model is the ideal conduit between what services espouse to offer families and what families should have a right to; genuine participation and decision-making power.</p> <p>McKeown ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref99">35</reflink>], p. 33) suggests that in order to be of any benefit, interventions with children and families who are vulnerable and experiencing adversity must (for as long as is necessary) be tailored to the family's definition of need, be based on a strong therapeutic relationship, build on existing strengths and resilience, and restore faith and hope in the family's capacity to solve its problems. This research emphasises these characteristics as core components of the FWC model that are highly valued by child protection and welfare social work practitioners.</p> <ref id="AN0111728910-20"> <title> Note </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref5" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Family Group Conference is the international term used to describe this model, but it is called Family Welfare Conference under the Irish legislation. The term Family Group Decision Making is also used in some countries. Although the models tend to share several basic philosophies and goals, the principles and practice of the model can differ somewhat depending on the context in which it is used (Berzin, Thomas, & Cohen, [5]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref11" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Dr Carmel Devaney is a lecturer at the National University of Ireland.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref83" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Paul Byrne is Family Welfare Conference Coordinator at the Child and Family Agency, Tusla.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0111728910-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Allen, G. (2011). Early Intervention: The next steps. Retrieved September 15, 2012, from <ulink href="http://www.media.education.gov.uk">www.media.education.gov.uk</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barlow, J., & Schrader McMillan, A. (2010). Safeguarding children from emotional maltreatment what works. London: Jessica Kingsley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bell, M. (1999). Working in partnership in child protection: The conflicts. British Journal of Social Work, 29, 437–455.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref28" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Berzin, S. C., Cohen, E., Thomas, K., & Dawson, W. C. (2008). Does family group decision making affect child welfare outcomes? Findings from a randomized control study. Child Welfare, 87(4), 35–54.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref16" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Berzin, S. C., Thomas, K. L., & Cohen, E. (2007). Assessing model fidelity in two family group decision-making programs: Is this child welfare intervention being implemented as intended? Journal of Social Service Research, 34(2), 55–71.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref23" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Brady, B. (2006). Facilitating family decision making: A study of the Family Welfare Conference Service in the HSE West area (Galway, Mayo, & Roscommon). Galway: HSE/NUI, Galway Child & Family Research and Policy Unit.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref39" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brady, B., Canavan, J., & Millar, M. (2009). Barnardos Family Welfare Conference Service South Tipperary evaluation report. Galway: HSE/NUI, Galway Child & Family Research and Policy Unit.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref55" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Brandon, M., & Thoburn, J. (2008). Safeguarding children in the UK: A longitudinal study of services to children suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. Child and Family Social Work, 13, 365–377.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref14" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, L. (2003). Mainstream or margin? The current use of family group conferences in child welfare practice in the UK. Child & Family Social Work, 8(4), 331–340.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, L. (2010). Balancing risk and innovation to improve social work practice. British Journal of Social Work, 40, 1211–1228.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connolly, M. (2004). Child and family welfare: Statutory responses to children at risk, Christchurch: Te-Awatea Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connolly, M. (2006). Fifteen years of family group conferencing: Coordinators talk about their experiences in Aotearoa New Zealand. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 523–540.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dale, P. (2004). Like a fish in a bowl: Parent's perceptions of child protection services. Child Abuse Review, 13(2), 137–155.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, J. M. (2007). Analysing participation and social exclusion with children and young people. Lessons from practice. International Journal of Children's Rights, Special Issue, 15(91), 121–146.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dolan, P., & Holt, S. (2002). What families want in family support: An Irish case study. Child Care in Practice, 8, 239–250.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doolan, M. (2004). The Family Group Conference: A mainstream approach in child welfare decision-making. Retrived September 15, 2012, from <ulink href="http://www.americanhumane.org">http://www.americanhumane.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fargion., S. (2014). Synergies and tensions in child protection and family support: Policy lines and practitioners' cultures. Child and Family Social Work, 19(1), 24–33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferguson, H., & O'Reilly. M. (2001). Keeping children safe: Child abuse, child protection and the promotion of welfare. Dublin: A&A Farmar.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forrester, D., Westlake, D., & Glynn, G. (2012). Parental resistance and social worker skills: Towards a theory of motivational social work. Child and Family Social Work, 17, 118–129.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fox, D. (2008). Family Group Conferencing and evidence-based practice: What works? Research, Policy and Planning, 26(3), 157–167.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frost, N., Abram, F., & Burgess, H. (2012). Family Group Conferences: Context, process and ways forward. Child and Family Social Work, 19, 480–490. doi:10.1111/cfs.12047</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Government of Ireland. (2004). The Children Act. Dublin: Stationery Office.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes, D. (2000). The use of Family Group Conferences in child protection work: An exploration of professionals' views. Child Care in Practice, 6(2), 124–146.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Healy, K., & Darlington, Y. (2009). Service user participation in diverse child protection contexts: Principles for practice. Child & Family Social Work, 14, 420–430.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Healy, K., Darlington, Y., & Yellowlees, J. (2012). Family participation in child protection practice: An observational study of family group meetings. Child and Family Social Work, 17(1), 1–12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holland, S., & O'Neill, S. (2006). We had to be there to make sure it was what we wanted: Enabling children's participation in family decision-making through the Family Group Conference. Childhood, 13(1), 91–111.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huntsman, L. (2006). Literature review-family group conferencing in a child welfare context, Centre for Parenting & Research, Funding & Business Analysis Division, Department of Community Services, NSW.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kemp, T. (2005). An evaluation of the Wexford FWC Project. Cork: "Nucleus" Health and Social Care: Research and Consultancy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kiely P. (2005, February 9–11). A longitudinal evaluation of Family Group Conferencing. Paper presented at the 9th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference Melbourne [summary]. Retrieved September 15, 2012, from <ulink href="http://www.aifs.gov.au/conferences/aifs9/kiely.pdf">http://www.aifs.gov.au/conferences/aifs9/kiely.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lonne, B., Harries, M., & Lantz, S. (2013). Workforce development: A pathway to reforming child protection systems in Australia. British Journal of Social Work, 43(2), 1630–1648.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lonne, B., Parton N., Thompson, J., & Harries, M. (2009). Reforming child protection. Oxon: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lupton, C., & Nixon, P. (1999). Empowering practice? A critical appraisal of the Family Group Conference approach. Bristol: Policy Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, P., & Crow, G. (1998). Family Group Conferences in child welfare. Oxford: Blackwell Science.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mason, C. (2012). Social work the "art of relationship": Parents' perspectives on an intensive family support project. Child and Family Social Work. 17, 368–377. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2011.00791.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKeown, K. (2000). A guide to what works in family support services for vulnerable families. Dublin: Department of Health and Children.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merkel-Holguin, L., Nixon, P., & Burford, G. (2003). Learning with families: A synopsis of FGDM Research and Evaluation in Child Welfare. Protecting Children, 18(1–2), 1–135.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mirsky, L. (2003). Family Group Conferencing Worldwide: Part one, 20 February (a); Part two, April 3 (b); and Part three, May 7 (c). International Institute for Restorative Practices. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from <ulink href="http://www.restorativepractice.org">http://www.restorativepractice.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morris, K. (2012). Thinking family? The complexities for family engagement in care and protection. British Journal of Social Work, 42, 906–920.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morris, K., & Connolly, M. (2012). Family decision making in child welfare: Challenges in developing a knowledge base for practice. Child Abuse Review, 21(1), 41–52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Munford, R., & Saunders, J. (2003). Making a difference in families: Research that creates change. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Munford, R., & Sanders, J. (Eds.). (2006). Strengths-based social work with families. Melbourne: Thompson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Munro, E. (2011a). The Munro Review of Child Protection: final report. A child-centred system. UK Department of Education The Stationary Office. Retrieved November 12, 2011, from https://<ulink href="http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/Munro%5fInterim-report.pdf">www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/Munro%5fInterim-report.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Munro, E. (2011b). The Munro Review of Child Protection interim report: The child's journey. Retrieved November 15, 2012, from <ulink href="http://www.education.gov.uk/munroreviewparttwo">www.education.gov.uk/munroreviewparttwo</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nixon, P. (2002). Family Group Conferences connections: Shared problems and joined up solutions. Hampshire: International Institute for Restorative Justice, Hampshire County Council.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Brien, V. (2000). Evaluation report: East Coast Area Health Board. Dublin: Department of Social Policy and Social Work, UCD.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Brien, V. (2002). Family Group Conference Pilot Project: Evaluation report. Ireland: Mid-Western Health Board.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Office of the Minister for Children, Department of Health and Children. (2007). The Agenda for children's services: A policy handbook. Dublin: Stationery Office.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pennell, J. (2004). Family Group Conferencing in child welfare: Responsive and regulatory interfaces. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 31(1), 117–135.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pennell, J., & Burford, G. (2000). Family group decision making: Protecting children and women. Child Welfare, 79(2), 131–158.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Platt, D. (2008). Care or control? The effects of investigation and initial assessments on the social worker–parent relationship. Journal of Social Work Practice: Psychotherapeutic Approaches in Health, Welfare and the Community, 22, 301–315.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Report of the Task Force on Child and Family Support Agency (2012). Department of children and youth affairs. Dublin: Government Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stevenson, O. (2007). Neglected children and their families. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sundell, K., & Vinnerljung, B. (2004). Outcomes of Family Group Conferencing in Sweden: A 3-year follow-up. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 267–287.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sundell, K., Vinnerljung, B., & Ryburn, M. (2001). Social workers' attitudes towards Family Group Conferences. Child and Family Social Work, 6, 327–336.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, N. (2000). Putting the family in the driving seat: Aspects of the development if Family Group Conferences in england and wales. Social Work & Social Sciences Review, 8(2), 101–115.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Houte, S., Bradt, L., Vandenbroeck, M., & Bouverne-De Bie, B. (2013). Professionals' understanding of partnership with parents in the context of family support programmes. Child and Family Social Work, 20(1), 116–124. doi:10.1111/cfs.12067</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Carmel Devaney and Paul Byrne</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref99"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1084924
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Value of Family Welfare Conferencing within the Child Protection and Welfare System
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Devaney%2C+Carmel%22">Devaney, Carmel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Byrne%2C+Paul%22">Byrne, Paul</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Child+Care+in+Practice%22"><i>Child Care in Practice</i></searchLink>. 2015 21(4):340-356.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Welfare%22">Child Welfare</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Safety%22">Child Safety</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Welfare+Services%22">Welfare Services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Childhood+Needs%22">Childhood Needs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Environment%22">Family Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Role%22">Family Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Models%22">Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Work%22">Social Work</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mixed+Methods+Research%22">Mixed Methods Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interviews%22">Interviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+Analysis%22">Statistical Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperative+Planning%22">Cooperative Planning</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ireland%22">Ireland</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/13575279.2015.1027173
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1357-5279
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The Family Welfare Conference (FWC) is a model used within the child protection and welfare services to address concerns about the needs of children and their family's ability to respond to these needs. The FWC model operates in partnership with family members, who participate in identifying both the issues of concern and potential responses to address these. The core premise of the FWC model involves greater engagement by family members in the process of responding to matters connected to their children's protection and welfare. This paper presents the findings of a research study on the value placed on the FWC model by social workers working in a statutory child protection and welfare department in the Republic of Ireland. A mixed-methods study was employed with social workers asked to complete an anonymous questionnaire and to participate in a face-to-face interview. The main findings highlight the value of the FWC as a model of relationship-based practice, with participation and partnership with family members viewed as crucial elements. The particular strengths identified in the model include the relationship that is established and developed between the FWC coordinator and the family members, the decision-making methods engaged in by families, and the increased understanding of the issues involved by virtue of participation within the FWC process. The place of the FWC within child protection and welfare services is considered in light of these findings, with an overall positive viewpoint presented.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 57
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1084924
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1084924
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/13575279.2015.1027173
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 340
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Child Welfare
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Safety
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Welfare Services
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Childhood Needs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Work
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mixed Methods Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interviews
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistical Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperative Planning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ireland
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Value of Family Welfare Conferencing within the Child Protection and Welfare System
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Devaney, Carmel
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Byrne, Paul
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2015
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1357-5279
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 21
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Child Care in Practice
              Type: main
ResultId 1