Introduction

Munro (2011) argued that one of the best ways to keep children safe is to develop innovative ways to enhance the quality of help and provide early intervention. She defined early intervention as both early years and early in the emergence of a problem. This, she argues, minimizes suffering, prevent rather than reverses, and is more cost effective.

We might argue that a good quality Early Help Family Group Conference (FGC) service would meet these aims. Indeed, Frost et al. (2015) in their review of Early Help Family Support argued that FGCs are an important part of this family support and alongside other approaches would help to stave the marginalization of preventative work.

FGCs are a family-led approach to decision making where decisions need to be made about the care and protection of children or adults. FGCs have been well established in children's services since the early 1990s. (Edwards & Parkinson, 2018). An FGC is distinct from statutory social care decision making in that the family take the lead and are given “private family time” to develop their own plan to address presenting needs and risks. The family is given a clear framework in which to develop this plan. A key feature of this is the “bottom line” which outlines the scope and limits of the decisions the family can make at the meeting. The “bottom line” needs to be clear about what the local authority will not allow from a safeguarding perspective. For a full discussion of FGCs in the UK, see Edwards and Parkinson (2018).

While FGCs have been well researched, particularly in the early days of their emergence (e.g. Crow & Marsh, 1997; Lupton & Nixon, 1999; Marsh & Crow, 1998; Merkel-Holguin et al., 2003) and more recently Foundations (2023), research has largely centered on outcomes for children involved in the child protection process. This may be because researchers don’t distinguish between “early” and “later” referrals adequately. Defining and measuring “outcomes” may be easier in FGCs with families involved in child protection compared to those receiving Early Help. Those in child protection will have social work involvement and clear aims that result from interventions such as avoiding care proceedings, saving money, and avoiding the need for care outside the family. Early Help FGC referrals may not involve ongoing professional intervention and support, and as such, the aims of the FGC may be both less well defined and less measurable. They may also have no Social Work intervention, and hence no recorded “before” and “after” measures. As a result, the focus of research might be better placed in “soft outcomes”. These soft outcomes may include voices of those involved in the process.

Edwards (2018) argues that despite literature on the efficacy of FGCs being sparse and small scale, there is research that has focused upon participation and engagement of families in FGCs. This research suggests that families engage well with FGCs and rate them favorably. This includes young people, who often feel that their inclusion in decision-making processes is tokenistic (Bell & Wilson, 2006; Frost & Elmer, 2008; Holland et al., 2005 Laws & Kirby, 2008).

Pennell and Burford (2000) found that two-thirds of family members found their FGC beneficial, even among those whose family plan was not fully implemented. They commented that the FGC brought the family closer and improved relationships, concluding that the conference is not just about the plan that comes out of it but is “an ongoing process of collaboration and empowerment in which families … take an active role in developing their potential” (p. 153).

Edwards (2018) explored the experiences of family members in the chapter titled “Family Members' Experiences” in the book by Edwards and Parkinson (2018). The findings revealed that family members found Family Group Conferences (FGCs) to be helpful and supportive. However, there is a recognised need for more evaluation and collaborative efforts in both the development of FGC services and related research.

The FGC service

This study focuses on an FGC service in a city borough with a population of 270,000 and ethnically diverse demographics. The current research was conducted on the “Early Help” service, which is part of a larger FGC service comprising six FGC projects. The Early Help project accepts referrals from families as well as front-door sign-posted referrals. It comprises 15% of the total FGCs of the service.

Methodology

Semi-structured interviews (see appendices) took place via video/telephone with Four family members who had been involved in an Early Help FGC and four FGC coordinators were interviewed about their experiences with Early Help FGCs. Written informed consent was given for these interviews/research from all participants.

Research information was sent to family members who had experienced an Early Help FGC and coordinators who had facilitated Early Help FGCs. The research participants were those who expressed an interest in participating in the research. All family member participants were parents/carers.

Data was subject to a thematic analysis using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six stage process to identify key themes. Themes were shaped through reflexive discussion between researchers and were inevitably influenced by their practice wisdom and knowledge of delivering FGCs.

Data collection was approved by the University of Salford Health Research Ethics Committee before the beginning of the study (application number: HSR1819-015).

Results and discussion

The limitations of this study must be acknowledged at the beginning of this discussion. As part of a larger project that occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic, the work was hampered by the small sample size and lack of participants who came forward to be interviewed. This may have meant that individuals lacking resources or technical knowledge did not come forward to be interviewed. This undoubtedly skewed or limited an already small-scale piece of research focused on one geographical area. The invitations to be interviewed were sent by the service and were constrained Although social workers and other referrers were invited to participate in the interviews, none of them came forward. FGCs also took place online during this period. Generalizing from such a small and unique sample and a tight research brief is not possible, so this discussion does not aim to do so.

There is also a recognition that inviting people to be interviewed creates the likelihood of participant bias (Robson, 2011) whereby those who are willing to be interviewed are those who are glad to have been part of the service. For example, one family member is now a volunteer in the service. Similarly, coordinators who interviewed about their experiences of FGCs were likely to view their own work in a positive light. All interviews took place via online platforms or telephone, which arguably impedes a fuller discussion and makes relationship development between interviewer and interviewee more difficult (Novick, 2008). Again, this leads to the conclusion that generalization is not possible. Instead, the discussion seeks to make sense of what those who were interviewed said and draw conclusions about the future direction of early Help FGCs.

Overall family views of FGCs

All four interviewees were positive about the FGC in which they had been involved. Two stated that they had initially been unsure about having an FGC and whether it would work. One family member stated that they were initially “intimidated” by the idea of the FGC due to having had a “bad experience with social services in the past … ”.

Another stated that they initially thought that the FGC “ … is not going to work because I didn’t understand what it was about … ”. However, both commented that the FGCs coordinator enabled them to understand how the FGC would function.

(FGC coordinator) was warm and full of empathy. He listened to our concerns, didn’t judge, and wasn’t patronizing. He empowered us and because he believed in us … that we could come up with a plan, we believed in him and agreed to it …

… after speaking to my co-ordinator, the anxiety went down …

All four were positive regarding the preparation stage. One family member commented on the fact that FGC coordinators do not record visits, “ … The best thing about it was that she wasn't writing anything, apart from names and numbers”.

Another commented on the support that the FGC coordinator offered to the family during preparation. “ … He took the time to get to know us … it felt like he wrapped himself around the family … ”

Another commented that the FGC coordinator was “brilliant at getting through to him (her son), and he (son) listened to (FGC coordinator). I never thought he would do it (FGC), but (FGC coordinator) spoke to him on his level … ”.

All family members were positive for the actual FGC. One family member described the FGC as “relaxed” and that the meeting went “at the pace of the family”. They went on to say that “ … There were no big words, and I knew that everyone was there to offer support … ”.

Another expressed her “surprise” that “ … Twenty people turned up … ” and that “ … It reignited my faith in humanity because I didn’t think anyone would help … ”.

All family members interviewed were satisfied with the outcome of their FGC and the resulting plan, and all felt that the needs of the family had been addressed at the FGC.

It helped us meet in the middle about lots of things. The plan has eased a bit of pressure off me as a carer …

it has helped … my son will be going to a different school and family members are helping out and doing what they said they would …

We get on better now, he (son) tells me where he is and what he is doing and he is speaking to his grandad …

I was ecstatic. I'll be honest. I didn't realize that so many people cared about me. It humbled me, it made me realize that … people do care … and that if you put your heads together, you're capable of anything

All family members stated that they would recommend FGCs to other families

I've been talking about FGCs to most people I meet. I have said to a few, “Why don't you try one?”. The social worker doesn't have a say, it's your voice.

Definitely would recommend FGCs to others. The professionals and my family all came together to help me and they didn’t judge.

When asked about what they considered to be the negative aspects of FGCs, no one was negative about the process of FGC per se. Three out of four family members spoke about possible difficulties if a family didn’t get on. However, the major criticisms centered on issues related to professionals involved with the FGC.

In a way, the social worker still has the power—if they don’t like the plan, they can decline it.

Interviewee 2 spoke about the high level of support that the FGC coordinator gave to their family but said that when the coordinator “pulls out” families could be left wondering who is going to support them, as the social worker in their case has not been in contact with them,

… We need someone like (FGC coordinator) still involved because we can’t get hold of the social worker. We don’t know where to go if it goes wrong. The message that was clear from all of the interviewees was that there needs to be a professional involved with the family, following an Early Help FGC to support them with implementing the FGC plan. However, it was widely acknowledged that this professional should not be a social worker.

For example, Interviewee 1 questioned whether family members could really held power at an FGC if a social worker had to agree with a family plan, as is the case in other FGCs. They emphasized that the absence of social work involvement at an Early Help FGC can enhance family engagement and empowerment (see discussion on empowerment below).

Identified themes

The importance of distinguishing between FGCs and other meetings

The first theme identified in interviews with coordinators was that of FGCs being viewed by families as “not going to work” or “intimidating”, which suggests that participants may not have had the process explained clearly or may have developed a biased view of social care meetings. Muench et al. (2016) found that in child protection meetings, families felt unsupported with minimal participation. They argued that this led to disengagement and potentially inhibited change. If families have experience of such meetings, they may feel pessimistic about the success of other social care meetings. Indeed, Buckley et al. (2010) concurred that people often found child protection meetings “intimidating and stressful” (p. 101). Edwards and Parkinson (2023) interviewed parents involved with childrens’ social care, with one commenting that “I just felt everyone was picking on me … It was literally all these professionals and they were all just on at me” (p. 133). More recent research by Raws (2025) found that negative previous experiences with statutory services and lack of belief in the effectiveness of FGCs prevented families from taking up the offer of an FGC.

This suggests that FGCs need to be explained thoroughly and the distinction between these and other social care meetings needs to be clarified. The role of family participation is emphasized. Additionally Early Help FGCs play an important role in avoiding statutory social care processes that may be viewed by families as dictatorial and punitive (Edwards & Parkinson, 2023). Interviewee 4 suggested that FGCs should replace child protection conferences, while this is either possible or desirable early Intervention FGCs may have a role in preventing escalation to child protection. Indeed, one of the strands of the Leeds Family Valued Project (2017) was the application of FGCs in domestic abuse cases as an alternative to child protection conferences. Subsequent evaluation of the service found that FGCs have the potential to reduce family violence and prevent escalation through the child protection process (Mason et al., 2017).

Comparison with other social care processes

When asked to comment on the difference between FGCs and other statutory meetings they had attended, all family members spoke positively about their FGC compared to other meetings.

… The professionals led the conversation in other meetings, but not at my FGC …

I felt comfortable and at ease. I felt as though I was in charge of this, and this was about me. I didn't feel like I was inferior, whereas when I had the child protection meeting.

… It was different because we were in charge, and it was not them (professionals) telling us what to do …

… professionals were talking about him (dad) as if he was not there (at other meetings), but at the FGC, it was just us deciding what to do …

Further issues emerging from the interviews reinforce some of the negative views discussed above regarding social care processes. One participant discussed the “stigma” of social work involvement and argued that whilst the social worker still held the decision-making power in an FGC at least the family are listened to. These feelings of being listened to were supplemented by other comments on the FGC process. These included it being “relaxed”, the lack of jargon, the lack of time limits either in preparation or in the meeting and the non-recording policy of the organization. All these align with the FGC practice standards produced in 2011 by the Family Rights Group. These practice standards lead to “kitemarking” of FGC services and whilst this remains a voluntary process, it guards against the erosion of some of the principles of the model.

In terms of comments from coordinators, these were largely positive, with coordinators seeing themselves as both preventative and offering “therapeutic” and “mediation”.

Although FGCs are neither therapy nor mediation, there are some similarities. For example, Holland and O Neill (2006) and Holland and Rivett (2008) suggested that FGCs and family therapy have much in common. Johansen (2020) likened the process of FGCs to network therapy, stating that although FGC is not a therapeutic program, it has certain similarities with network therapy, such as the aim to mobilize support from the social network and its focus on letting each participant have their say.

The empowering nature of FGCs

Family members commented that FGCs

take a level of fear away … . This is because when a social worker's involved, there's that stigma of being a bad parent. Whereas the FGC puts you back in the driving seat and allows you to feel comfortable in giving your views without it being recorded. The social worker doesn't hear the conversation; the social worker just gets the plan at the end

Other family members reflected on this idea about the family being in the driving seat, stating that they felt “empowered” at the FGC.

All family members spoke positively about their family coming together to support them, and all but one of them expressed some surprise about how willing their family was to help.

They were all there to help me and I didn’t know whether they would come or not. They are all doing what they said they would do.

It was nice to know that I was not on my own … people do care and are helping …

I wanted to shout it from the rooftops. I was saying to people, “My God, I had this thing, I didn't even realize that you guys cared about me.” It was exhilarating …

Each coordinator spoke about the empowering nature of FGCs

… it is about empowering families; it's about letting families to make their own decisions, they are the best people to tell us that because they know their children better than anybody else.

It is about empowerment of the family rather than professionals saying what is best for them.

The empowering nature of FGCs, emphasized in these interviews, is well documented in research and evidence. Parkinson (2018) presented a case for the relationship between FGCs and empowerment theory, citing Metze et al. (2013), who attempted to develop a theoretical framework for FGCs based on the concept of relational empowerment. Metze et al. (2013) argue that meaningful human relationships can lead to the empowerment of individuals through the social, emotional, and practical support that people provide to each other. An FGC is based upon bringing together a social network to develop a plan for the care and/or protection of a child/vulnerable adult in a family, based upon social, emotional and practical support. Therefore, relational empowerment is an appropriate lens for understanding the empowering nature of FGC (Parkinson, 2018). For a more detailed discussion on FGCs and relational empowerment, see Metze et al. (2013) and Parkinson (2018).

Online FGCs

All four family members interviewed were involved in online FGCs due to Covid restrictions. Interviewee 1 had also been involved in face-to-face FGC a few years earlier and was able to compare the two meetings:

I think they both had different strengths. I think that the online one gave … Other family members who were abroad a say. I felt that face-to-face was more personal, and comfortable.

The three other interviewees were quite pragmatic about their experience of an online FGC:

… It went well because all of the family were together and only (FGC coordinator) was on zoom. It went really well because (FGC coordinator) led it well …

It was fine because everyone knows how to use technology these days.

All three coordinators emphasized the impact of Covid-19 and undertaking FGCs online. All the FGCs that the coordinators had facilitated over the past year took place online. All three coordinators stated that the outcomes from these FGCs were still positive.

I think that in some ways families have found it easier to do it this way … outcomes have still been good.

Furthermore, Coordinator 1 talked about the convenience of undertaking virtual FGCs online and that in some ways, it was easier to get family members together.

… It was easier to catch people, to put a date in.

However, concerns have been raised about the difficulties in coordinating meaningful FGCs in a virtual space.

It is tricky, you lose the human touch. When you go and visit someone, you meet them face-to-face.

… some of them say, ‘Oh, we don't like the fact it has to be on the phone’. Even with the young people: they're not sure about what's going on; it's difficult.

… Whereas when you're online or on the phone, it takes a lot more phone calls, it takes a lot more time to build rapport.

Differences between early help and other FGCs

When asked about the differences between Early Help FGCs and other FGCs, the key differences centered on two areas:

• no identified referring professional in some cases
• no identified timescales as the FGCs are not part of a statutory process.

All three coordinators agreed that when there was no identified referring professional, this made the FGC more difficult to organize.

… it's more difficult to organize these FGCs, and takes longer because there is no one there saying, get on with it.

people are used to being told what to do, and the social worker takes the lead; sometimes, when it's Early Help, they struggle with that—they wait for me to act like a social worker. I am not a social worker; I'm independent. My job is to just facilitate this meeting.

usually, there's no social worker involvement gives the families the authority over what happens.

Coordinator 2 raised an issue about family expectations of their role as independent coordinator, in the of social work involvement.

The barrier could be that because people are used to being told what to do, and the social worker takes the lead; sometimes, when it's Early Help, they struggle with that—they wait for me to act like a social worker.

it's a lot more work for a coordinator because you are the social worker, you take on the problems. I feel like you work a lot harder on them, it takes more time.

With regard to the absence of timescales at an Early Help FGC, coordinator 2 felt that this lack of focus made organizing the FGC more complicated.

There is no timescale … so it’s more complicated

However, coordinator 1 implied that not having a timescale gave them more flexibility and, in fact, is more complicated when a social worker is involved, as this can cause delays.

sometimes, because there's a social worker involved, you can delay the process … We do the report together. Then, it's down to the social worker to then send it to the family: they may agree the content or not. If they don't then the social worker then has to reamend the report and then send it to them, then send it to me … we're going round in circles. That’s why I prefer Early Help.

Another issue raised by all three coordinators was that the lack of a referring professional in some Early Help FGCs meant that there was some confusion over the “bottom line” and what support was available from the local authority to support the family. Two coordinators raised concerns that when there was not a referring professional, sometimes the family was left without support and the family would look to them for this support (see comments above).

I think an FGC is a bridge between the social worker and family because the FGC coordinator is not a social worker and is not family but is trying to bridge that gap so that, hopefully, it will be a positive result and they won't need social work intervention for long. So, it will shorten the time that social workers need to spend on each case.

Interviewee 1 also talked about the stigma of having a social worker involved and that the FGC can mitigate this by putting the family “in the driving seat”.

Resource implications

The issue of resources to support a family was raised by coordinators and family members.

one of the biggest things is support. I think it's the support that the family may need that you aren’t in a position to give; it may be financial, respite care, you just never know what, it's different with each family.

What, also, is a barrier is the resources. When there's a social worker involved families can get support.

However, it could be argued that this is not a problem with the model of Early Help FGCs per se, but a wider structural issue about the lack of resources available to support families at an Early Help Level.

This appeared to be compounded by the fact that at an Early Help FGC, there is often no referring professional to coordinate resources and services to support families, and families appear to look to the independent coordinator to fill that role. Parkinson (2018) argues that one criticism of the FGC approach is that, by encouraging families to take responsibility for their own issues and concerns, there is a danger that professionals place all the responsibility to address issues with the family and the resources they have between them, rather than providing professional advice and support. Furthermore, research suggested that in situations where family plans fail, in many cases, this is due to a local authority not providing the resources promised to a family and sufficient support (Crampton, 2007; Kanyi, 2013; Weigensberg et al., 2009).

Conclusion

The overall conclusion drawn from this research is that Early Help FGCs are an important service and a valuable part of the overall FGC provision. FGCs are largely about involving families in decision making, and there is evidence in this report that this Early Help FGC service achieves this aim. Furthermore, both family members and FGC coordinators interviewed suggested that Early Help FGCs lead to positive outcomes for families and can prevent the need for formal social work services. One FGC coordinator noted the importance of FGCs occurring earlier to prevent escalation. This is an important point and was recently emphasized by the Welsh Families 1st Project (2017).

The continued development of effective early intervention support represents an intelligent approach to working with families, and investment in services. Not only can these services provide effective, timely support to families, prevent escalation of need, and poor long-term outcomes they can also deliver long-term savings. (p. 44)

The findings from this study are significant in that they emphasize the role that Early Help FGCs have in preventing the need for social care safeguarding interventions. The authors recognize the need for further longitudinal research into the impact of Early Help FGCs, as a tool for prevention.

Key messages and recommendations

The overall recommendations for the evaluation are as follows:

• Early Help FGCs represent 12.5% of the service’s FGC referrals. Increasing the proportion of these referrals would support earlier help for families, a reduction in escalation to formal child protection services, and potential overall cost savings.
• Early Help referrals come from a wide range of sources. However, in 67% of the FGCs, there was no information giver, which is a key element of the FGC process. Whilst this may lead to more autonomy for the family it also means that there is no “bottom line” so there is less guidance for families, meaning that success is more difficult to measure. This may also lead to poor follow-up of the plan and post-FGC support. Having an appropriate named professional involved to support the family to implement their plan would mitigate against this, i.e. Early Support Worker.
• Family members were positive about early help FGC services. One of the themes that emerged from this was that family members welcome the opportunity of the FGC to reduce the need for social work services. Hence, the authors recommend that ALL families that fall under Early Help Services are offered an FGC.
• Virtual delivery is essential, but families and workers prefer face-to-face meetings. Wherever possible FGCs should remain a face-to-face process. This is supported by Family Rights Group practice standards (2011). However, the advances in technology afforded by Covid 19 undoubtably give family members flexibility and allow people who would otherwise be unable to attend, a voice in the process.