Plain language summary

What did we want to improve?

When children’s services are worried about a child’s safety, they usually hold an initial child protection conference. Families, advocates and local authorities have raised concerns about initial child protection conferences for many years. Parents often describe them as frightening, shaming and disempowering, while children and wider family members are rarely involved. Long reports and discussions led by professionals who may not know the family well can make the process feel alienating, with little focus on building lasting solutions.

Some local authorities developed the Safeguarding Family Group Conference model as an alternative. This gives families the chance to take a more active role in decision-making, supported by professionals, in a strengths-based and family-led way.

What did we do?

We used a realist evaluation approach to understand how Safeguarding Family Group Conferences work, for whom and under what circumstances. Seven local authorities explored whether they could introduce the model, taking part in workshops, expert sessions and peer reflection. In three pilot sites, researchers observed meetings, interviewed families and practitioners, and collected data on referred families. We also consulted with social workers, parents and young people with lived experience to shape the evaluation and identify meaningful outcomes.

What does this mean?

Safeguarding Family Group Conferences show strong potential to empower families, reduce stigma, and give children and parents a real voice in decisions. Families valued the chance to involve wider networks and create more meaningful safety plans. However, implementation was inconsistent. Some practitioners were hesitant because the model is not part of statutory guidance, while others were unsure about changing established practices or increasing family and child involvement.

For Safeguarding Family Group Conferences to be widely and fairly offered, there needs to be commitment and support at all levels of the system. With this, the model could improve child safety, strengthen family relationships and lead to better long-term outcomes.

Background and introduction

Current practice

When children’s services have child protection (CP) concerns about a child, they may carry out an assessment to understand the level of risk. This is called a Section 47 assessment, referring to Section 47 of the Children Act 1989, which places a duty on children’s services look into a child’s circumstances if they receive information that the child may be at risk of significant harm (https://frg.org.uk/get-help-and-advice/what/child-protection/). If the result of the assessment is that there is felt to be sufficient evidence that a child is at risk of significant harm, a strategy discussion is held to plan next steps – a discussion between a social worker and their manager, a representative from the policy, other agencies that are involved with the family or have made a referral which has led to the discussion being held (read more: http://iscp.gg/article/118053/Strategy-discussion). One outcome from these discussions is to schedule an initial child protection conference (ICPC). An ICPC is a formal meeting convened to determine how to safeguard children who are considered to be at risk of significant harm. In England, ICPCs are part of statutory guidance under Working Together to Safeguard Children,¹ which emphasises multiagency collaboration to protect children. The aim of the ICPC is for the family and professionals to meet and share information with each other about the risks and the strengths within the family to provide appropriate care and protection for a child. Agencies or practitioners that are regularly invited to ICPCs include (but are not restricted to): the police, social work, schools, housing, general practitioners, health visitors, midwives, mental health workers, drug and alcohol workers, third-sector support services and probation. The timescale for convening an ICPC following a strategy discussion is 15 working days. This is a national timescale set by the government, and all local authorities (LAs) in England are expected to meet this timescale.

However, an ICPC is often found by parents (and children) to be deeply shaming and exclusionary. ^2–4 It is not only families who find this practice difficult – the ICPC process is reportedly difficult for social care practitioners and partner agencies also. ^3–9 However, the ICPC is a statutory process and serves a number of functions. These include sharing information between agencies, making multiagency decisions about the level of risk and safeguarding children,^10,11 highlighting the seriousness of the concerns to parents and alleviating professional anxiety about risk. ¹²

Some have argued that these functions can still be served while using a model that also emphasises family participation, for example. ¹³ Family group conferencing is the most widely used model of family-led decision-making in the UK. FGC is a process for supporting family-led decision-making. An independent co-ordinator works with the family, including the child, to identify who is important to them, understand information shared by professionals and identify what they need to live safely together as a family. Proponents of FGC argue it offers a way of protecting children while ensuring parents, children and other family members can take part in decision-making, feeling more empowered and respected while doing so. ¹⁴ Used in this way, FGCs may be a key resource for engaging families more effectively with services to keep children safe.

Some LAs have explored how family-led ways of working can replace, or be used as an alternative offer, to the statutory way of working, rather than as an additional or add-on intervention. However, this was not widespread at the inception of the study.

The innovation

The Safeguarding Family Group Conference (SFGC) model was designed and introduced by three LAs, who partnered with the research team on this project. The model aims to introduce the offer of a FGC for some families who would ordinarily have an ICPC as the result of Section 47 investigations. This is different to offering a FGC alongside a statutory process which is what happens in practice as usual. The aim is to provide the form of the ICPC – responding to the threshold for CP intervention, sharing information between professionals and families, holding a meeting with relevant partners to decide on the best response to the safeguarding concerns that have been identified, to make a plan to mitigate the risks to the child, and to come back together over a period of time to monitor how well the plan is working. However, the SFGC model aims to map this form but deliver it in a family-led way that can function to bring families to the forefront of decision-making (Figure 1).

This study

The research team were involved in a scoping review which aimed to identify what interventions might reduce the need for children to be in care,¹⁵ and a rapid realist review of one such intervention type which focused on how shared decision-making meetings. ¹⁶ These led to consultation with LAs who were adapting their CP processes to be more family-led. From this, a research-practice partnership was formed between the research team and these LAs to explore how their model could be adapted to new settings.

An initial evaluation of the proposed SFGC model developed a theoretical framework about how these meetings work and which families appear to benefit (not publicly available). The LAs that designed the SFGC model are commissioned by the Department for Education as Partners in Practice to spread innovative practice to other LAs in England. Prior to a wider roll-out of the SFGC model, there was a need to clearly understand the core components of the SFGC and the contextual elements that impact its uptake and embedding, including which families will benefit and in what way. The study therefore was not designed to definitively test the effectiveness of the model compared with practice as usual but to build an understanding of how it might work, and explore initial indicators of positive outcomes.

Research questions and aims

Three work packages (WPs) aimed to coproduce knowledge with LAs, partner agencies and those who access or who have been involved with children’s services to better understand:

1. how to achieve uptake and embedding of the alternative FGC pathway in diverse LA settings,
2. what outcomes are of interest to families, children and professionals, and
3. which families under which circumstances will improve on these outcomes following diversion to an alternative SFGC pathway.

These research questions (RQs) were addressed in three WPs.

Work package 1: evaluate implementation

• Aim 1: understand how, why, and for which families, the decision to divert down the SFGC pathway is made or not and how implementation activities (e.g. workshops with strategy meeting chairs and social workers) can support this. RQ1: what works and in what way to enable uptake and embedding of FGC into the CP pathway as an alternative to an ICPC?
  Objective 1: test implementation of the alternative SFGC pathway in 8–12 LAs and coproduce an implementation manual for LAs to explain how to enable uptake of and embed the SFGC, highlighting key barriers and ways to overcome them in different settings.

Work package 2: identify appropriate outcomes (stakeholder engagement)

• Aim 2: identify which outcomes parents/carers, children, social work professionals, FGC service leads/co-ordinators, partner agencies (including health, police and education) and wider family consider appropriate. RQ2: what outcomes are deemed most appropriate by families, including children and young people (CYP), and professionals?
  Objective 2: explore and prioritise appropriate outcomes with stakeholders to inform data collection in WP3 to understand how the SFGC pathway contributes to these in the medium and longer term and coproduce outcome knowledge for the implementation manual.

Work package 3: in-depth case studies of which families

• Aim 3: build understanding about the experiences (both positive and negative) of children and families and which elements of the SFGC model they consider worked or did not work for them in relation to the appropriate outcomes identified in WP2. RQ3: for which families under which circumstances does FGC enable a more positive experience of the CP pathway and promote outcomes appropriate for families and professionals?
  Objective 3: coproduce elements of the LA implementation manual that explain which families under which circumstances and in what way are most appropriate to be diverted to an alternative FGC pathway.

Methods

Research design

The study was a theory-led mixed-methods realist evaluation. We recruited eight LAs for the study. Partner LAs took the lead in identified sites that they felt would be sufficiently resourced and prepared to implement the model. LAs were supported by partner authorities with prior experience of SFGCs, who shared their learning and helped to design and implement the new models, building on approaches that had already been tested in practice. In practice, this meant that senior and front-line staff with experience of designing and implementing the model within their settings ran workshops for LAs that were interested in delivering the model within their sites. In addition to the planned implementation support activities (workshops), staff from partner LAs – including three FGC managers, a practice improvement expert, senior safeguarding staff members, and front-line social work and FGC staff – also offered one to one support to LAs and online drop-in sessions.

During the initial phase, the focus was on implementation. We collected primary data (from observation of learning workshops, phone/online interviews, and observations of implementation team meetings). To identify appropriate outcomes from the use of SFGC, we engaged in stakeholder consultation, conducting workshops and interviews with service providers, families with CP experience, and care-experienced young people. In-depth case studies in three LAs aimed to produce a detailed description of whether and which families might benefit, under which circumstances, and in what ways from SFGC. Linked researchers within the case study sites observed meetings and discussions about the new model and carried out qualitative data collection with families and practitioners. Routine data extracted from social care/FGC service records by practitioners gave a wider picture of the use of SFGCs in the study period, and the potential impact of a wider roll-out.

The study had three WPs (Figure 2).

First, we aimed to recruit 8–12 new LAs to explore whether SFGC could be viable in their setting, and what would need to be in place to make this possible. This involved them participating in learning workshops delivered by partner LAs with experience of implementing the model, one to one sessions with the research and LA practice partners, and attending peer reflection sessions. An initial 10 LAs engaged with workshops, with eight remaining engaged in the implementation sessions throughout.

Interviews were carried out with 14 senior members of staff within 7 LAs over 15 months (June 2022–September 2023) at 2 time points. Initial targets were 16–48 participants at 3 time points, representing at least 2 members of staff from each site. The lower end of this target was not met as only seven LAs took part in interviews. The higher end of this target was not met as implementation did not progress sufficiently to include a wider group of practitioners in interviews as they would have limited knowledge of the ongoing implementation process. However, the team also carried out supplementary observations (N = 17) of study support meetings/workshops and LA research team meetings (N = 6). We also collated documents (N = 15) related to the implementation process. These interviews, observations and documentary analysis explored what helped and what hindered the SFGC process to being acceptable to professionals and families. These were analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)¹⁷ (see paper 1¹⁸).

Interviewing at the third time point was not possible due to research team capacity. Instead, observations were carried out and research notes were collected (n = 22) in the three LAs who introduced the model within the data collection window (September 2023 and September 2024). These were synthesised along with the findings from time points 1 and 2 using a realist synthesis framework into a programme theory about implementation (see paper 3¹⁹)

Second, consultation groups with social workers, care-experienced young people and parents with experience of CP were held to find out what outcomes children, families and professionals believe are appropriate to study. This shaped our updated programme theory, and also our data collection tools for the pilot evaluation. We initially planned 3 informal group discussions with professionals and 10–15 interviews with professionals, 3 workshops with children in care councils and 3–5 informal interviews with parents from partner LAs. The group discussions and interviews with professionals were achieved; however, the other approaches to involving care-experienced young people and families were not successful in their original form due to (1) the pause of children in care councils during COVID-19 restrictions and subsequent challenges facing LAs in reinstating these, and (2) a lack of engagement from families who had since closed to children’s services. However, instead different approaches were taken to engaging stakeholders though other roots (see Public involvement) so target numbers were met.

Third, in the three LAs that decided to pilot SFGC, researchers observed their delivery. This included inviting families referred to the intervention over a 7-month period (September 2023–March 2024) to participate in the research. The study followed three families and all involved professionals through the SFGC model to understand how it did or did not work for them and why. Across 3 case study sites, 15 families were offered the intervention, and 4 (26.7%) consented to participate. Three families received the full intervention. The observation of initial planning meetings for the family that did not receive the full intervention was also included in the qualitative analysis. In total, we undertook 27 interviews with 15 individuals which included family network members including young people (n = 7), FGC co-ordinators (n = 2), social workers and support workers (n = 4) and CP chairs (n = 2). This was below the target of 6–10 families taking part in qualitative data collection, and therefore below the target of 18–30 family members and 24–40 professionals being interviewed. Quantitative service data were also gathered on all 15 referred families referred to the pathway during the recruitment window.

The evaluation focused on two phases of implementation: designing the model in different settings (WP1) and piloting the model in new settings (WP1; WP3). The phases overlap as LAs were at different phases across the study. Stakeholder engagement (WP2) was carried out throughout all phases to prioritise outcomes of focus, develop research instruments, interpret findings and develop the programme theory and implementation guide. The methodology for the study is published in the first paper included in the synopsis (paper 1¹⁸) and a previously published paper. ²⁰

Designing the model

This area of the study focused on LAs actively engaging in the implementation support delivered by partner LAs and the research team to explore whether SFGC was viable in their setting, and designing their model. This took place in two stages

Stage 1 (4–8 months)

The research team worked closely with the three practice partner LAs to conduct stakeholder engagement and coproduce an initial implementation package (guidance, learning workshops and one-to-one support) for roll-out in the eight study LAs which was tested and refined in stage 2. It consolidated the learning from practice partner LA internal evaluation. Stage 1 informed content of data collection tools (interview schedules and so on) and participant information sheets. Stakeholder engagement was carried out within the practice partner LAs to prioritise and elaborate on the initial programme theory developed from the pilot evaluation and a realist review conducted by members of the research team. ¹⁶

Stage 2 (9–34 months)

The implementation package was delivered (learning workshops, drop-in sessions, guidance, one-to-one support). Implementation of the SFGC model was evaluated. This involved the research team engaging the eight LAs who utilised the implementation package in qualitative interviews, observations and document analysis. A Researcher-in-Residence was embedded in one LA to observe the implementation process, observing implementation project meetings and discussing the process with key implementation staff. Where possible, the researcher sat with the relevant social work teams and FGC services and attended implementation meetings. Data collection was informed by the programme theory logic model and analysed data from stage 1 and was used to understand what makes a receptive context for successful implementation of the SFGC pathway. It was used to understand the key barriers and facilitators to implementation.

Evaluating the model

This area of the study focused on the three LAs that introduced the SFGC model during the evaluation timescale. Two of these LAs had started their design phase at the beginning of the study (from April 2022). The other LA had already been exploring the use of the model prior to COVID-19 restrictions but had paused their roll-out.

In WP3, a link researcher worked with each of the three case study sites who were piloting the model over 6 months. Researchers were not able to sit with teams as in WP1 (see Participation in the study (including reflections on equality, diversity and inclusion)) but attended key meetings about the model, strategies meetings exploring which families would be referred to the pathway, and team meetings discussing the use of the model. These researchers also carried out qualitative data collection with families and practitioners who consented to take part in the research and gathered routinely collected data from the service about the wider group of families who had a SFGC. These data were used to refine the programme theory about how SFGC might work for families, and what factors are conducive to successful implementation of the model. These data, along with the data collected in WP1 and WP2, and workshops held with LAs were used to coproduce an evidence-based implementation guidance. Realist synthesis informed coproduction of the implementation guidance, outlining what works to support uptake and embedding of the SFGC model in different LA contexts, and how it can improve outcomes and for which families under which circumstances. Routine data analysis provided by LAs was used to determine the effect on key CP outcomes (step up/down, child placement, meeting attendance), although this was limited due to the quality of data collected at LA level and the small number of families who received the intervention.

Public involvement

The aim of public involvement in the study was to significantly involve parents and young people with experience of CP involvement and practitioners throughout the research project in (conduct of the research, advisory, three WPs, dissemination, and outputs/implementation guide). This was to ensure that the conduct of the research was ethical and relevant, and that the outputs were useful and valid.

Public involvement members were offered compensation (vouchers, payment) for their time at a rate equivalent to the average hourly rate for a FGC practitioner. We were sensitive in our approach to engaging with people with lived experience, and asked them to reflect on our key findings rather than their own CP experiences. We offered people different ways of participating (coming to sessions, having separate conversations with members of the team, and so on.).

Public involvement was carried out at different stages of the research.

Conduct of the research

We carried out an in-person consultation session with care-experienced young people about the study. The session was carried out with Children’s Social Care Research and Development Centre (CASCADE) Voices – a group of care-experienced research trained young people. The session included six young people and focused on the best ways to include CYP in the research, and questions that we might focus on in interview guides (WP2; WP3). The session was carried out by the CASCADE engagement worker.

We consulted four parents with social work experience about the interview schedules to be used with parents, and how to best explain the research to families (WP2; WP3). This consultation was with a group of parents who are engaged in a parents’ consultation group held by CASCADE. The patient and public involvement (PPI) lead ran the session with the CASCADE engagement worker.

We consulted three social workers with care-experience about ways of engaging with social workers (WP1, WP2, WP3) and including young people in our research (WP3). This was conducted by the PPI lead in an online discussion.

Governance

A parent with experience of CP and SFGCs was invited to sit on our steering group. This parent brought both lived and professional experience to the group. We also invited a representative of an organisation (the FRG) to sit on the steering group to provide governance from the perspective of families and practitioners/organisations who use the family group conferencing model.

Interpreting findings

Four public involvement members with lived experience of the CP system (two care-experienced people, one parent with CP experience, one peer advocate for a parent) attended our expert stakeholder groups. They participated in coproducing the programme theory about how the meetings work for families and children (WP2, WP3) and the implementation guide for national roll-out (WP1).

Two consultation sessions were held with a group of parents (session one n = 14 parents; session two n = 12 parents) in one LA who have experience of CP and FGC. These sessions were held as part of the monthly group sessions that the LA holds and the PPI lead and theory led attended in person to discuss the research and gain insight into the programme theory (WP2, WP3) and how family members could be included in implementation teams in LAs.

We carried out a second consultation session with CASCADE Voices which involved four young people and focused on interpreting and building on the findings of the research about how CYP can best be included in SFGCs (WP2, WP3). This involved a creative activity focused on what being involved might look like for different children.

We conducted stakeholder engagement with service providers (through the FRG network) to think about how the model that was developed fitted with their understanding of the best way to deliver this way of working (WP1, WP2, WP3).

Dissemination

We invited people with a CP-experience to the three reflection workshops we organised. Two were involved in the design and delivery of these workshops through creating two videos to start conversations and share thoughts on the challenges and the responsibilities of working in a participatory way with families and children. We used a Community of Enquiry model^21,22 to create a forum for discussion, a way of thinking in a reflective way, a space where everyone had something to say and where different views were welcomed. This enabled public involvement members and practitioners to participate on an equal footing.

Ethics

Ethical review of the research was conducted by the Exeter Medical School Research Ethics Committee. Ethical approval was granted (UEMS REC reference: 493165). Participants in the study included: practitioners who work in high stress sensitive environments, CYP aged under 18 and families and children going through a CP intervention. Families and children within this cohort by definition were going through stressful or distressing circumstances. Taking part in the research could also trigger memories of difficult experiences, current challenges or difficult relationships. One of the main complexities in taking an ethical approach to the research therefore was including children and families in the study while they were actively engaged with children’s services. We were acutely aware of the requirement to protect the safety, dignity and well-being of participants. The study included significant PPI engagement which guided all our research relationships.

We included participatory and engaged methods in our work. The realist approach to interview focuses on the process or system under examination, thereby shifting the focus of the relationship away from any individual participant. Core to our study was to examine a CP pathway which is believed to better support children and families and move away from a shaming or blaming environment. This approach was key to all our research relationships. The study steering group provided oversight of methods and delivery of the research project and guided the research team to identify, monitor, and effectively manage risk.

We considered that family participants may feel coerced into taking part in research, especially if feeling vulnerable or where there is a power imbalance. We therefore had clear procedures in place for approaching potential participants (WP3). In case study sites, we had individual data-sharing agreements which determined how routine data were extracted from social care/FGC service records in a way that protected participant’s identities. We did not collect any personal data from this strand of the study, and therefore, on the advice of experts in the field, participants were not approached to opt in to consent due to the potential burden on the professional team and the families involved, as well as the potential for a low return rate.

For qualitative data collection, participants received clear, age-appropriate information sheets and consent forms, and will have the opportunity to talk through them prior to agreement. The information sheet stated that whether or not they chose to take part in the research their decision would not affect the CP process or outcome. We produced a list of places that participants can access support should they find the interview brings up difficult emotions for them which was provided with the information sheet.

Our approach to ethics may have limited the opportunities for families to be involved in the research as there were a number of steps that needed to be taken for them to be approached and consented (Figure 3). However, on balance, protection of families at this extremely sensitive time was felt to be paramount and a flexible approach to data generation was felt to give sufficient data to answer RQs.

Equality, diversity and inclusion

The research looked to serve all families (including children) on the CP pathway and the practitioners who work with them. Families from certain demographic groups in the population are over-represented in CP. For example, parents with learning difficulties,^23,24 families from minoritised ethnic and religious groups,²⁵ children and parents with disabilities,^26,27 families living in poverty and deprived areas,²⁸ and care-experienced parents. ²⁹

We aimed to minimise barriers to participants taking part in the research. We created bespoke information sheets and consent forms adapted for each group we wanted to interview (practitioners, families, CYP). Having linked researchers in the case study sites helped to adapt how to communicate about the research for each family. We checked with practitioners who knew families if there may be any barriers to participation and adapted our approach on that basis. We were able to propose an advocacy support for the families recruited as well as interpreting services for family interviews. That said, even with these measures in place, we were only able to recruit a limited sample.

Summary of findings

This synopsis provides an overview of the findings of the study. More details can be found in the linked peer reviewed publications (Table 1).

Scoping review

At the outset of WP1, we conducted a scoping review to understand the extent to which implementation frameworks such as the CFIR and theories such as Normalisation Process Theory had been used in the UK children’s social care context. Gaining an understanding on how implementation science frameworks were being used within this setting would help to identify further how implementation science can support children’s social care research and programme implementation. A preliminary search of MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and JBI Evidence Synthesis was conducted, and no current or underway systematic reviews or scoping reviews on the topic were identified in the setting of the UK. This scoping review was limited to UK literature published since 2016 as another scoping review³¹ was published which included US literature and found no studies in the UK.

One thousand eight hundred and sixty-four articles were screened at title and abstract stage. All were screened by at least two reviewers. Fifty-seven articles were included at full text. These were screened by two reviewers. Of these, 19 were excluded due to being delivered in the wrong setting – the majority were within adolescent mental health settings; 8 were excluded as they were delivered in the wrong country (all the USA). Eighteen were excluded as they were the wrong type of source (reviews). Eleven studies were focused on implementation in children’s social care in the UK. These, however, did not clearly apply the use of an implementation framework within their study, rather they spoke about implementation issues, or thematically analysed data to inductively evaluate implementation.

Only one study³² was included in the final studies. The study applied Extended Normalisation Process Theory (ENPT) to evaluate the implementation of the Strengthening Families Programme (10–14) within a UK randomised controlled trial. ENPT provided a framework to examine how practitioner agency (commitment, capability and contribution) and organisational capacity shaped fidelity, dose, participant engagement, and recruitment. Findings showed that while adherence to programme content was generally high, variation was linked to factors such as the quality of facilitator preparation meetings, challenges in multiagency staffing, and difficulties in recruiting families. The study concluded that ENPT was a useful tool for explaining how interactions between the intervention and local delivery systems influenced implementation, highlighting the importance of both structural supports and process factors.

The findings indicate a clear gap in research within the children’s social care sector in the UK. There is an increasing interest in conducting implementation studies within this sector, as well as developing effective implementation strategies relevant to the setting. The use of implementation frameworks in understanding implementation within children’s social care could greatly enhance understanding of the conditions necessary for effective implementation within this field. Studies that were excluded due to the setting in which they took place were carried out in settings that may have similar issues with implementation to children’s social care (i.e. mental health, adult social care, education, primary health). It is possible that a broader scoping review may highlight relevant findings.

Participation in the study (including reflections on equality, diversity and inclusion)

Work package 1: evaluate implementation

Eight LAs agreed to participate in WP1 of the project (although only seven took part in interviews, and the other dropped out after the first implementation workshop). The number included was sufficient to achieve a maximum variation sample and provided rich contextual understanding (e.g. from differences in settings) and ensured the project was feasible within scope, budget, and timeline. A wider group of LAs originally expressed interest, and some of these attended sessions to learn about the research but did not feel they were in a position to explore implementation within the study timelines.

The LAs who were recruited had an existing FGC service. These included some LAs who provide within house FGC services, and some with externally commissioned services. The sampling produced variations in size, urban/more rural/coastal, population density and settings/practice model – but maybe less variety in terms of regions represented as we were not able to recruit any LAs from the Midlands, Eastern, and Northern regions (Table 2).

Practitioners were selected based on their active engagement with implementation of SFGC, enabling them to reflect on barriers and facilitators within their LA. Participants were drawn from a pool of individuals who were key to implementation in each of the participating LAs. As such, the research team did not have control over who was eligible for this part of the study. Although eight LAs agreed to take part in this part of the study, interview data were only collected from seven as one dropped out before progressing to implementation. Interviewees included 14 middle and senior managers/leaders, at least 1 per LA. Participants were based in departments across children’s services including safeguarding, FGC teams, and quality assurance teams.

During WP1, a researcher was embedded in one of the sites. This supported recruitment of practitioners into the study and enabled the collection of researcher reflective notes and observations. Site visits were conducted by the wider team to participate in bespoke implementation workshops from which observation notes were also gathered.

We also created a peer-to-peer supporting network to optimise participation and ensure the commitment of practitioners, and to help them implement the new practice in their local setting. Partner LAs and the research team offered drop-in sessions and one to one support. However, there was limited uptake and engagement with this additional offer of support.

Researcher notes generated during these sessions were analysed and supported the development of the implementation guidance.

Work package 2: identify appropriate outcomes (stakeholder engagement)

A diverse range of stakeholders were approached to engage with the project at different stages. We actively sought diversity within the stakeholder groups. We approached a range of organisations to recruit to representatives from the organisations to the stakeholder groups for the study, and prioritised inclusion of people with different experiences of children’s social care and family group conferencing. This included stakeholders from third-sector organisations, LAs, social work academics, parents and care-experienced young people with experience of social work interventions, people with experience of delivering and supporting people through FGCs, and practitioners with experience of delivering SFGC. We were able to engage a wide range of stakeholders by taking many different approaches to engagement and consultation including: setting up our own expert stakeholder group, conducting stakeholder engagement within LAs who had already been delivering SFGC and engaging with existing consultation groups.

Work package 3: in-depth case studies of families

For WP3, three sites were selected as case study sites due to progressing with piloting the intervention. The case study sites reflected a geographically diverse spread, a range of high and low numbers of CP meetings per week, and diverse population, urbanity, and size to explore the impact of similarities and differences in key contextual factors on implementation.

Fifteen families across three case study sites were offered the intervention during the recruitment period (Table 3). Of these, four consented to take part in the research. This means 26.7% of families eligible to take part in the qualitative component of the research consented to do so. Of these, three progressed to receive the intervention and were involved in the full round of qualitative data collection. The one family who did not progress to the full intervention took part in early observations of preparation meetings. This means that in total we collected qualitative data from four families and linked practitioners who participated in the SFGC across two case study sites. In total, we undertook 27 interviews with 15 individuals which included family network members including young people (n = 7), FGC co-ordinators (n = 2), social workers and support workers (n = 4) and CP chairs (n = 2). 87.5% of the interviewees were women/girls and 12.5% were men. We also gathered quantitative data from the service about the wider group of families who were referred for the intervention – 15 families across three case study sites.

Despite collecting qualitative data from a lower number of families than initially planned, we were able to build a practical and rich programme theory due to the qualitative approach taken and the in-depth interviews with multiple people involved in the process. To better understand how this approach might work differently for some families, questions were asked about this to reflect on equality, diversity and inclusion We supplemented our qualitative data collection with extensive stakeholder engagement, including meeting with a diverse group of parents and care-experienced young people with experience of similar interventions or practice as usual. This helped us to consider the generalisability of our findings throughout the study.

To maximise the ability for families to participate, and to ensure that they did not feel pressured to take part, for WP3, we contacted families in the way the family told the practitioner (social worker) they would like the research team to contact them (phone, e-mail, letter, in-person). We amended our protocol to facilitate direct access to families (with their agreement). This helped us to recruit families who were referred to SFGC for different reasons and had varying levels of support network.

However, it is important to note the criteria to offer SFGC to families are based on LAs’ specific criteria for the intervention – and could vary across the LA. This means that those eligible to participate in the study were those the LAs offered the intervention to, and those who felt able/willing to take up the offer of the intervention. Ensuring that we were able to offer the chance to participate in the research to all families who received the intervention allowed us to attempt to represent the population served by the intervention within our sample.

The families we sought to recruit were going through a stressful time as they navigated professional’s CP concerns. In addition, families have busy lives. The time and energy required to engage with university and LA consent processes and participate in data collection activities may have acted as a barrier to some families taking part in the research. Despite the active steps this project took to involve families on their terms, we still struggled to recruit participants. This was not unexpected, and families and their support networks were proportionally less well represented than practitioners in the study.

Our initial aim was to have a researcher embedded in each site to reduce the burden on practitioners when recruiting families into the study. This approach facilitated data generation for WP1 and supported recruitment of practitioners into the study. The approach also enabled the collection of researcher reflective notes and observations. However, due to delays in implementation and a change in the originally proposed case study sites for the pilot evaluation, researchers were unable to remain fully embedded in LAs during WP3. Instead, we used a linked researcher approach. This meant that each site had a linked researcher who worked with practitioners and was known to practitioners in that site. That meant that, when there was a possible SFGC referral, there was a clear process with a named researcher to explore recruitment into the research study.

Reflective and feedback workshops were offered online to fit with the busy agendas of practitioners, families, and PPI members. Some in-person sessions were organised locally, and costs of attending were covered to offer this choice. Any session offered in person was replicated online for those unable to attend in person.

We originally planned to invite families who took part in the intervention to the reflection and feedback workshops. However, the delayed timelines for piloting the intervention meant that this was not felt to be appropriate. Families were actively in the intervention at the time of the workshops meaning their participation could impact on the effects of the intervention itself. We sought instead to ensure PPI members came and were actively involved in designing and participating in workshops to keep the family perspective at the heart of the sessions.

Given the generative nature of our methodology (i.e. theory building) and the small sample size, data were not disaggregated to understand the different effects for different demographic variables.

Our research team combined various expertise and experience in:

• Implementation evaluation (PenARC’s Implementation Science).
• Engaged PPI approaches and engaging families of and children in care in research.
• Realist approach in social care.
• LAs (social children services).

Our team is a mix of researchers and academics at various career stages. We provided development opportunities via:

• Presenting at national and international conferences.
• Developing a peer-to-peer academic network (realist social care group).
• Writing papers with practitioners and other academics.
• Training in realist evaluation for researchers-in-residence.
• Opportunities to take on responsibilities: Our team experienced two promotions during the project. One of coinvestigators was proposed and accepted to step up as principal investigator on the study. A researcher on WP3 was proposed and accepted to step up as lead for WP3.

Our study network included a charity (FRG), three NIHR-funded projects on FGC (family voice at CASCADE/Cardiff University, Family and Group Conferencing for adults at the FGC Research and Practice network/University of Birmingham and randomised controlled trial of FGC at pre-proceedings stage (foundations) and additional expertise from our expert stakeholder Group and our Study Steering Committee members.

Our expert stakeholder groups included three people with lived experience of CP processes, three front-line social work professionals, three FGC co-ordinators/managers and a FRG representative. Members of the group were given the opportunity to collaborate on writing papers from the study which two did.

Our Study Steering Committee included 10 individuals with a wide-range of the following expertise:

• health and social care research support,
• families and children participation in research,
• realist evaluation
• FGC and social work practice – we also invited a member with CP experience.

Implementation facilitators and hindrances

The key findings of WP1 are reported in two papers. The first from this WP (paper 1) maps implementation factors that were observed using the CFIR. The key findings highlighted in the paper indicate factors across different domains that influenced implementation (Figure 4).

Characteristics of the innovation

Relative advantage

Perceived benefits of SFGCs over current practice were critical, particularly if it was felt that the new model would be more in line with the values of individual practitioners and the organisation, and would be better for families. This might be particularly relevant to implementation in a field such as social work which is often felt to be values based. If the approach was felt to align with existing practices, participants seemed to see greater potential value in it. Clarity about the advantages of the proposed model influenced willingness to implement.

Trialability

Small-scale piloting helped address uncertainties and demonstrate SFGCs’ benefits before considering wider roll-out.

Outer setting influences

Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills inspections

The potential of an inspection could encourage or hinder innovation based on organisational confidence in SFGCs and perceived risk.

Peer collaboration

Networking and sharing experiences among LAs were deemed to be beneficial. This might be particularly useful when LAs that are held in high regard and/or have similar characteristics to each other share their experiences and resources.

Inner setting challenges

Resources

Time and capacity were often insufficient to support the design and implementation of the intervention. There were limited, if any, resources more widely within the LAs to support research or implementation of a new approach.

Structural characteristics

The LA organisational structure influenced team responsibilities and resource allocation. This was not a straightforward relationship between LA size and available resources. More that different structures influenced implementation in different ways, and needed to be accounted for in implementation planning.

Information technology systems

Integration of SFGCs with existing recording systems was challenging. It was helpful if implementation of the SFGC pathway was conducted at a similar time to other Information technology (IT) system updates so that the new model could be embedded into referral and monitoring systems. This needed clear planning, and the involvement of the IT team in early implementation plans.

Role of individuals

Leadership

Senior leadership engagement was pivotal for resource allocation and staff buy-in. However, leadership changed within some of the sites during the study period, which made continued buy in difficult. Moreover, implementation teams were not always clear about how to get senior sign off, and at what point this needed to happen.

Implementation leads

Dedicated leads facilitated planning but were constrained by workload and authority limitations. Only one LA managed to engage project support to help with implementation, but this was at a late stage in the project, not from the outset.

Implementation process

Planning

Clear implementation plans and structured communication were essential but often lacking. This was made more difficult due to a lack of implementation resource and time. External support from the research team and partner LAs was instrumental in fostering collaboration and problem-solving.

The findings underline the need for innovations to clearly align with organisational priorities and values, and existing policies to gain traction. Leadership commitment to introducing any change within CP is crucial for success as there is a lot of anxiety working within this space. A systemic, multilevel approach involving collaboration with families, communities, and partner agencies is necessary to ensure that the intervention meets the needs of the population and feels viable to deliver. Leveraging external facilitation and peer networks can mitigate barriers to implementation.

A second paper from this WP (paper 3¹⁹) focuses specifically on how the concept of ‘risk’ influences decision-making and acts as both a barrier and a catalyst for innovation. The analysis identifies three types of risk that influenced implementation: (1) risk to children’s safety if the intervention fails, (2) risk of reverting to traditional risk-averse practices, and (3) risk to social workers’ accountability if outcomes are negative after they have deviated from statutory processes. The authors argue that addressing these risks through oversight, clear communication, and engagement with professionals and external stakeholders is crucial for successful implementation.

The findings emphasise how aligning new approaches like SFGCs with social work values while ensuring sufficient resources, leadership support, and professional buy-in can help to overcome anxiety about risk within the model. Collaborative planning and clear communication of the intervention’s rationale were key to overcoming professional anxieties about working outside familiar processes. The study highlights the role of leadership in fostering a culture of psychological safety, where practitioners feel supported in their decision-making and empowered to adopt innovative approaches that prioritise family engagement and strengths-based practices.

Effective implementation of family-led approaches requires addressing organisational and cultural barriers, particularly the entrenched focus on risk aversion. Strategies include building robust oversight systems, engaging stakeholders early, and ensuring policy coherence with innovative practices. By balancing child safety with family empowerment, the paper advocates for systemic changes to make family-led models like SFGCs a viable alternative to conventional CP processes.

Which families might Safeguarding Family Group Conference work well for

One of the aims of the evaluation was to consider which families SFGC might work well for. In the design and early implementation stages, LAs had different, and often conflicting, criteria for which families they would offer the intervention to base on which they thought would benefit from it the most, and which they thought it might not work for. The criteria included:

• Families who had been through CP previously

In some LAs, it was felt that families who had already been through CP, de-escalated and then are now returning to CP would not benefit from the SFGC model as they may have deep-seated issues within the family that needed a higher-level professional intervention. On the other hand, some LAs felt that having been through CP before and now coming back to CP could indicate that the ICPC approach did not work for that family, and therefore SFGC could be an effective (or at least promising) alternative offer for these families which could also show that the LA was committed to working differently with them.

From our data, we saw that in reality both families with prior CP experience and with no prior CP experience were referred.

• The reason for concern

Some LAs decided criteria around the reason for concern that they felt could not be addressed in a SFGC. These varied across LAs, but the two areas for concern that were felt by some not to be appropriate were child sexual abuse and domestic violence. Other LAs felt that the reason for the concern should not be a criterion used as it would vary from family to family.

The most consistent reasons for concern that practitioners felt would be particularly suited to SFGCs were ‘risk outside the home’ including child criminal or sexual exploitation, parental mental health and parenting capacity, and neglect, particularly where the children were teenagers. Reasons given included the importance of including adolescents and wider networks in safety planning where the risk was outside of the home, and including the wider family to bolster parenting capacity where parents were neglecting to meet their children’s needs.

From our data, we saw that reasons for concern for the families who had a SFGC included addiction/drug use (carer and/or child), poor mental health (carer), neglect and parenting capacity, domestic abuse/risky relationship, adoption breakdown, teenager keeps going missing, risk of exploitation/harm outside the house, teenager arrested.

• Level of parental engagement with services

One of the main criteria that was suggested to decide which families should be offered the model was whether or not they were engaging with the social worker and agreed with the safeguarding concerns that the professional network had. However, these criteria were heavily challenged by stakeholders who felt that the model had the potential to improve relationships between children’s services and families where there had been a break down in the relationship, or where families were mistrustful of working with children’s services. Moreover, the model aimed to improve families understanding of concerns therefore excluding those who did not understand or agree with the concerns was felt to be at odds with the intention of the intervention.

In our qualitative data collected from families, the opportunity offered by an independent FGC co-ordinator was felt to improve their trust and engagement, and their understanding of the concerns.

• Family network members

The other commonly suggested, and contested, criterion was the number of members within the family network. Some suggested that a minimum of three network members would need to be evident before the offer was made. Others highlighted that part of the FGC model was to support families to identify and strengthen their networks, particularly where these networks may have become distant or might not be evident to the family. Some stakeholders also highlighted that social workers and their managers who would be making decisions on who to offer the intervention to might not be best placed to know the extent of the family network due to the time constraints on practitioners when working with families potentially limiting their abilities to work with the wider family network, and potential barriers to family network members being open to their details being known to children’s services. It was felt by stakeholders that the SFGC model therefore could be particularly useful for families who seemed to have a limited network.

Our qualitative data showed that families particularly valued having their network involved in meetings, and that the SFGC model helped them to see more capacity in their network than they were aware of, and rebuild relationships that had become strained.

While these findings do not give a definitive answer to the question of ‘which families’ could SFGC work well for, it does indicate that a set criteria may not be the best way of deciding, but actually it should be on a case-by-case basis, or an offer for all families who would ordinarily have an ICPC – or, perhaps most acceptable in practice, an offer to nearly all families, with some very specific and well-articulated exclusion criteria.

It is important to note that during the evaluation, the model was still in development, therefore the criteria applied may have developed over time, and the model may have developed to make it more applicable to certain families. For example, to ensure that the model still focused on immediate safeguarding risks, the development and agreement by the parents/carers to an interim safety plan were introduced into the model to be used until the SFGC plan was developed.

Family experiences of Safeguarding Family Group Conference

The pilot period lasted for 12 months between September 2023 and August 2024. During this period, families were offered SFGCs in three LAs in England. The intervention was offered to 15 families and accepted by 11 of those. The recruitment period for the qualitative element of the study was September 2023–April 2024. During this time, any family that was offered a SFGC was invited to take part in qualitative data collection. Three of these families had their SFGCs within the data collection window of the study and consented to take part in the study. Qualitative data gathered from these three SFGCs included meeting observations (n = 9) and interviews (n = 24) with individuals (n = 13) associated with the pilots – including parents, young people, family network members and practitioners. Wherever possible, interviews with each individual were conducted at two points in time, with a gap of 3 months. One further family consented to take part in the research, but the SFGC did not take place as new information about the risks was discovered during the planning period and professionals felt it was too risky to manage with a SFGC while the model was still under development. Early observations were carried out with this family about the planning and preparation period.

Family experiences are reported in two academic papers. The first (paper 2³⁰) focuses on the experiences of all family members and the practitioners who worked with them. This paper reports part of the programme theory that was developed, with a focus specifically on the parts of the intervention – information sharing, and the wider network being together in a shared space. This was to highlight key differences between this way of working and ‘practice as usual’ to help build an understanding of how this approach might compare. While the form of the intervention might be mapped to current practice (see Figure 1), the significant difference in function is the engagement of the wider family network in safeguarding.

Families reported a generally positive experience of the SFGC process. Parents stated that they accepted the offer of SFGC as it afforded them the opportunity to have their family members alongside them during the conference. Parents took the lead in deciding who would be invited to the SFGC. They reported that they felt supported by the practitioners in reaching out to the invitees and explaining the concerns and the process to each of them, so that everyone felt prepared for the conference. We also heard from parents and observed that they felt able to share concerns about their own needs and mental health, who to invite, or whether the child or young person would attend the conference.

In general, parents reported feeling valued and respected in their interactions with the practitioners including during the conference. The main benefit reported of the model over the ICPC process was the opportunity to have members from their extended family or network of friends present during the conference. Members of the family’s network who took part stated that they appreciated having the opportunity to show up for the parents and the child or young person they loved and cared for. They felt they were able to gain a better understanding of the situation, and what needed to be done. Certain network members acted as an advocate for the parent, supporting them in articulating in their perspective. Other network members offered practical support to the family in keeping children safe, including taking children to park, or football, helping them with homework, or having them over to their place when the parent did not feel able to care for them. They also offered other support to the parents to enable them to save time to spend with their children, like cleaning and washing, helping with home improvements and dropping off the children at school and picking up groceries.

Family members who attended the SFGC said they felt appreciative of the efforts that went into organising the conference. They also felt that the conference was an opportunity for them to resolve any misunderstandings among the family network, especially during the private family time. In one instance, the family network felt that they were already supporting the family and the child; however, the conference helped make things formal and made parents and network members accountable for what they said they will do to keep children safe. The conference also seemed to help young people understand what they could do and who they could go to when feeling unsafe. On occasions, they also had the opportunity to share what they thought and felt with the adults – extended family and practitioners – within their network.

For some families, the SFGC pathway continued to work well post the conference, within the window of this study. The family and children or young people felt safer, and more self-reliant with the network’s involvement in the safety plan and support services offered by the children’s social services. In an overall environment of mutual trust between the practitioners and the family, they continued to review the family plan and address the evolving needs of the CYP. However, the experiences of some family members after the conference were mixed. Certain new developments or new risks caused a shift in the relationship that had been built through the SFGC process between the family and the practitioners. This sometimes made the family members feel less valued or trusted, and more anxious.

A second paper is in preparation focusing on the participation of CYP within SFGC, and how this intervention might work to better involve CYP themselves in planning for their own safety and well-being. This in not included in this synopsis as it is not currently published.

Overall, family experiences in this study provide further support for earlier research findings that families report satisfaction when participating in family-led decision-making fora like FGC. However, this study theorised that how the family-led decision-making intervention is practised with families is key in determining the extent of family satisfaction and outcomes of interest, including the safety of CYP. Importantly, the positive effects of SFGC might be lost over time if services do not offer ongoing support, do not follow up on support plans and/or do not continue to work in ways that are in line with the values of FGC.

Practitioner experiences of delivering Safeguarding Family Group Conference

Practitioners included in this study generally reported that they were satisfied with the model, though they felt that it was challenging for them to work in the new way. Practitioners involved in different SFGCs included in the study comprised social workers, FGC co-ordinators, family support workers, team managers and CP chairs. The study also included observations of planning meetings (n = 19) that service managers, senior managers and other staff participated in to prepare for the roll-out of the pathway in their LA. Different LAs underwent different planning and preparation processes based on their respective timelines, what stage they were at and what their objectives were in piloting the new pathway. In this study, we saw practitioners working with their IT team to adapt their software to the new pathway, designing and delivering briefing and training sessions for social workers and team managers, and developing resources for practitioners and families. We also saw them thinking ahead to anticipate challenges and putting mitigation steps in place, to ensure that the roll-out of the intervention was smooth and beneficial for families involved. Moreover, different LAs deliberated on different ideas about which families they would offer the new pathway to, for example, families with prior experience of CP or those new to CP; families where the young person faced extra-familial harm or families where children faced risk of domestic abuse.

During the pilots, practitioners (generally the child’s social worker) offered the opportunity to take part in a SFGC to a family when they felt that the risks could be managed within the family’s extended network. They explained to the family that the risks were high, yet, recognising the strengths in the family, a SFGC was being considered an appropriate alternative to practice as usual. They explained that this was a new way that was being piloted with families in the LA. The FGC co-ordinators explained the stages of the process to the family. The practitioners used strengths-based solution-focused language in their interactions and their written communications and made efforts to accommodate everyone’s schedules in organising meetings. The practitioners generally worked on tight timelines (20 days) to complete the preparation work and address the conference logistics. However, these timescales were not always met.

Practitioners who worked with families through the SFGC preparation and after the conference expressed satisfaction at using a model that valued and respected the family and believed in their ability to keep their children safe despite the challenges they faced. They felt that they were not doing to the families but working with them as equals. The SFGC gave them the opportunity to see the family and the children within their larger context and embedded in a network of loving relationships who cared for them. The practitioners extended support for the family plan by means of support services like therapy or de-addiction programmes, parenting programmes and regular home visits in line with CP Plan. The FGC co-ordinator remained the key point of contact for the family through to the actual conference and in one case through to the review of the family plan. SWs still had the role of communicating the risks and maintaining focus on how the family plan addressed the risks. How clearly and consistently this was done varied. In general, it was the role of the family social worker to continuously review how the family plan was working after the conference, sometimes with input from the CP Chair. The FGC co-ordinator was then involved in the formal review process, although with crossovers during the preparation process for review meetings, there was sometimes a lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities between different practitioners.

Many practitioners felt even after piloting the intervention for only 3 months that SFGC could be an appropriate route for families to manage safeguarding risks, and that the route had the potential to be offered to more families, with some feeling all families could potentially benefit. They felt that keeping children safe within their networks was a more sustainable way and potentially better approach for positive child outcomes. However, it was important to remember that families often had complex issues that could not be addressed with a FGC alone, but the process could form the basis of developing a sustainable and appropriate plan to support the family going forwards.

Practitioners also acknowledged that not all families who were eligible for the intervention were offered it, and that it could benefit more families if it was more widely available.

Potential for scale-up of the intervention

Local authority criteria for referring families for a SFGC varied. Some practitioners, along with wider stakeholders, felt that SFGC could be offered to any family who would ordinarily have an ICPC. However, others felt that, especially with the newness of the model, it would be better to target the offer to families where they did not feel the risks were likely to escalate over a short period of time, but were high enough to meet the threshold of a child being likely to suffer significant harm. With this in mind, and recognising the potential damaging impact of ICPCs, we wanted to understand how many families realistically LAs may offer SFGC to if it was embedded. Although not a perfect measure, based on stakeholder consultation, we considered families who had an ICPC within the LA but stayed on a Child in Need (CiN) plan, returned to a CiN plan or closed to children’s services due to there no longer being safeguarding concerns within a 6-month period after an ICPC as potentially good candidates for a SFGC. Two of the three LAs provided routinely collected data which helped to build an understanding of how many families might benefit from a SFGC if the model was rolled out more widely.

In LA9, in the period 6–12 months prior to implementation, 39 ICPCs were held. Of these, 38 resulted in the child being placed on a CP plan. Six months post ICPC, 11 (28%) escalated to care proceedings, with two having returned to their parents’ care after having spent a period of time in care. Ten had been stepped back down to a CiN plan and one had their case closed due to there no longer being safeguarding concerns (28% where safeguarding concerns had reduced). Stakeholders within LAs felt that those families where the case stepped down within 6 months on reflection could have been in the target sample for a SFGC rather than an ICPC. This was due to stakeholders hypothesising that a SFGC should be able to manage risk as well as an ICPC by drawing on family resources and their own safety plan. This population was felt to be different from those who remained on CP plans or where concerns had escalated and the child entered care, as it was felt that in these situations more professional involvement and oversight was needed.

During a 3-month period when the pilot was live, 2 families took part in a SFGC and 21 had an ICPC. Six months post intervention, both families who took part in a SFGC were still on a CiN plan. Of those who had an ICPC, eight had a reduction in the level of social work involvement, with four stepping down to a CiN plan within 6 months, and four had been closed to children’s services due to there no longer being significant safeguarding concerns (38% stepped down). This indicates that, during the pilot period, the intervention may not have reached a very large proportion of the families that could have benefited. However, this was likely due to the newness of the offer and the decision by the LA to focus on a small cohort.

In LA3, 87 ICPCs were held in the period 12–6 months prior to implementation. Of these, 79 resulted in a child being on a CP plan; 12 of these were stepped down from the CP plan within 6 months. This means that 23% of all families who had an ICPC within this LA during this period were on a less intensive intervention within 6 months of the ICPC being held. Fifty-two of the families remained on the CP plan after 6 months and did not escalate to a more intensive intervention within a 6-month period. Within 12 months of an ICPC, a further 38 families had been stepped down from a CP plan.

In a 3-month period during the pilot period, 38 ICPCs were held. Of these, 36 resulted in the child being placed on a CP plan. Within 6 months of the ICPC, only two (6%) had stepped down to a CiN plan. This may mean that the availability of an alternative offer in the SFGC diverted some families from an ICPC to a SFGC, and/or changed wider practice around holding an ICPC for some families. In this period, three SFGCs were held, which would not fully account for the change in ICPCs for families who stepped down from CP soon after.

However, data provided by both LAs indicate that potentially up to a quarter of the families that currently have an ICPC may be able to remain within CiN and the risk be managed through a SFGC rather than an ICPC, if we are to assume that business as usual (i.e. the ICPC) does not, in and of itself, create change for families.

Of course, the reason that the situation stepped down may have been because of the ICPC having worked well to address the safeguarding concerns. However, stakeholders and practitioners within the study highlighted that they felt a plan developed by a family network through a SFGC should be as safe, if not safer than one created through an ICPC. It is possible therefore that for families where the risks decreased within a 6-month period, this change have been achieved through a SFGC.

If LAs consider a benchmark of 25% of families who would usually have an ICPC to instead be offered a SFGCs, they could use this figure as a way of planning the resource implications of this. Each SFGC involves three conferences – the initial conference and then two reviews.

Discussion

Despite challenges and the relatively small sample, the study team were able to collect nuanced and relevant data which supported understanding of both implementation needs and strategies within the CP context, and family experiences of working in a different way to develop safety plans.

Lessons learnt

Conducting the study was challenging for many reasons. Firstly, LAs were not as ready for implementation, as the study team believed they would be when the original project was planned. This was due to a number of factors. The project was planned before the COVID-19 pandemic was fully understood. The impact of COVID-19 on LA resources, priorities and ways of operating, including a significant shift to online working, impacted on their ability to engage with this study. In addition, it became apparent in the inception of the study that LAs were resource poor when it came to the resources necessary to conduct the implementation of such a complex programme of work. This included not have dedicated staff or time to support with research or implementation. Secondly, the approach taken by the research/practice partnership that was established to support with implementation was found to need supplementation to meet the needs of LAs in the above implementation context. This was in part due to two of the senior practitioners who were involved in designing the study retiring from practice before the study began, meaning a significant loss of knowledge and expertise to the team.

Moreover, stakeholder engagement ahead of the study indicated that LAs would need to adapt the model into their own context rather than being given a clearly defined model to introduce. As a result, this meant that a significant period of time was needed for LAs to develop their own model and get this signed off by senior leadership before they could attempt to implement the model. This meant far more resources needed to be dedicated to implementation support than previously anticipated. On reflection, the additional implementation supports should have been built into the strategy from the outset. These included: monthly online drop-in sessions; direct links between staff in implementing authorities and peers in other sites; one-to-one support from experienced partner authorities and the research team; and a shared online space for resource exchange. Because these supports were only introduced later, once it became clear that more help was needed, they were not taken up at the time when they could have been most valuable.

These issues are relevant for other studies within this area that aim to evaluate an intervention that is not yet implemented or embedded in practice. We would recommend measures of readiness for implementation being used ahead of any similar studies in the future to decide on eligibility to take part, but also to support LAs to consider whether they are realistically able to participate within a set timescale.

In addition, although we were able to collect data with some families within the study, this was very complicated. We had limited time for this part of the study due to the delays experienced with implementation. However, despite this, we feel there still would have been challenges with including families at this point in their involvement with children’s services. Families were going through a difficult time when the intervention was offered. This included needing to make quite difficult decisions about how they wanted to work with children’s services. To also have to make decisions about research participation could have felt like an additional burden. The team did a lot of work to minimise any burden or confusion based on the research participation. However, this further limited opportunities to engage families. Moreover, as this was a very new way of working for practitioners, adding the research consent process to the intervention consent process proved difficult. Similar studies in the future may want to consider including families at a later stage following participation in the intervention and perhaps including more standardised ways of collecting data during the intervention that could be administered by intervention staff.

That said, the realist approach allowed for the collection of nuanced data from families. The ways of asking interview questions and conducting observations allowed for an in-depth exploration of the mechanisms through which the intervention worked. Participants – practitioners and family members including young people – responded well to the theory testing questions, which allowed them to speak about their experiences but also to think about the wider intervention and how it might operate for other families. This approach seemed valuable particularly when exploring new ways of working where the potential outcomes are not clear at the outset, and where the intervention may operate differently for different participants.

Implications for decision-makers

There is a strong steer from national government in England to develop and transition to more family-led ways of working, particularly where there are concerns about child safeguarding. However, the risk-averse nature of CP means that systems are not always well set up for letting families take the lead.

Evidence from this study highlights that implementation is not straightforward: practitioner hesitancy, lack of statutory underpinning, and discomfort with child and family involvement all constrained consistent delivery. Supports such as peer networks, shared resources, and structured opportunities for reflection were found to be valuable, but would have been more effective if built into implementation strategies from the outset rather than retrospectively. This underlines the importance of clear, well-resourced implementation plans that anticipate resistance and provide practical tools to embed change. With the new mandatory offer of family-led decision-making meetings in pre-proceedings (25), SFGC offers a complementary approach that can bring family networks into safeguarding decision-making much earlier.

Future research recommendations

While this report suggested that SFGC could be a positive intervention for families, there is still a need for more comparative research to understand if the model can successfully keep children safer that practice as usual, and result in more children remaining safely within their family network. An impact evaluation, potentially using a quasi-experimental design, could help to answer some of these remaining questions.

Limitations

The sample size for the study was significantly smaller than originally intended due to delays with implementation and difficulties recruiting. This particularly impacted on WP3 which aimed to evaluate the experiences and outcomes for families who took part in SFGCs, and which families might benefit from the model and which might not. In that way, findings about family experiences should be interpreted with caution, as they relate to a small number of families who were involved in a pilot of the model.

The study was not designed to be comparative but rather theory building. However, comparisons to practice as usual were made throughout. Despite this, the design of the study does not lend itself to making any firm conclusions about the benefits of the intervention over practice as usual.

We were advised by practitioners to limit the amount of demographic data we collected from families to reduce overburdening family members and practitioners with questions, and to minimise the special category data collected. Moreover, the small sample of families and practitioners means that inclusion of demographic data would have made individuals identifiable. This limits our ability to evaluate the diversity of individuals reached, and an aim of future research would be to actively target a diverse range of families in terms of age, ethnicity and other cultural factors. Routinely collected data within LAs was not of high enough quality to address this aim either as details such as who attended ICPCs or FGCs and their demographic details are not routinely or consistently collected in a way that is easy to analyse (i.e. these data might be in case file notes but not in quantitative data returns).

Including PPI members at every stage of the study helped us to keep the study relevant and deliver outputs which seem fit for the purpose. However, the landscape of PPI within LAs changed during COVID-19. Many groups that we had intended to include – for example, children in care councils – stopped during the pandemic, and there were struggles to set them up again after the pandemic. This limited who we could engage with at the outset of WP2. Luckily, we had strong connections with other groups. However, this limitation may have limited the diversity of the stakeholders we were able to include. In addition, due to delays in implementation, we had to downsize our ambitions to invite parents or young people to co-deliver workshops with the researchers.

Diversity and inclusion

As noted in the other sections of the discussion, diversity and inclusion in the research study was dependent on the delivery of the intervention in the LA sites to diverse and representative participants. All families offered the intervention were eligible for our study, and we did not identify any disparities in those who consented to take part. However, there are potentially disparities in which families are offered a SFGC due to decisions that are made by professionals, and this is something that should be researched further.

Impact

Public involvement

There was strong engagement with the study throughout. This strengthened the study in many ways. Firstly, we were able to refine our initial programme theory by engaging people with experience of delivering the programme within partner LAs. That enable a refinement of our theory about how the programme would work, and the development of appropriate research tools for the evaluation. Secondly, stakeholder engagement throughout the study informed the analysis of the data, supporting both with interpretation and development of the programme theory. This allowed for data from a small group of participants to be considered in a wider context and generalisability to be considered.

Public involvement also increased the impact of the research study. Stakeholders were able to champion the research to wider networks and communicate the findings. We were able to engage stakeholders also in dissemination through cocreating content for reflection workshops, attendance at feedback workshops, and cowriting some of the research findings.

Dissemination

We carried out extensive dissemination activities throughout the study, nationally and to participating LAs through a range of feedback workshops and publications. There are four main output types: (1) an implementation guide, website and practice-focused description of the model for LAs who want to use SFGCs that provides guidance and key principles to consider to support implementation; (2) A national webinar was held to share findings and implications for policy and practice, (3) reflection workshops were held for study LAs; (4) three open-access academic papers, including: two papers from the implementation evaluation, including one paper focused on implementation factors and another focused on the role risk and professional anxiety in implementing and delivering SFGC;¹⁹ and one further papers from the qualitative data reflecting on family experiences have been submitted³⁰ and form part of this synopsis. A paper detailing the methodology was also published,²⁰ and a further paper about children’s participation in the intervention is in preparation.

During the project, we regularly participated in events to present the project and share our research findings with key audiences for discussion and feedback:

• Participating sites (practitioners) via our monthly forums and to advisory group members with CP experience.
  We collaborated with a case study site on writing a journal article about space and place in FGC and SFGC. We facilitated a writing workshop for practitioners 1 August 2023.
  Based on stage 1 outcomes, the research team has facilitated workshops around SFGC pathway: 17 January 2023, 20 January 2023, 9 February 2023, 14 February 2023, 13 March 2023, 24 April 2023.
  We organised a workshop dedicated to the implementation guide to explore with practitioners, professionals of all participating sites and people with experience of CP (PPI members) to inform the coproduction of the implementation guide.
• Wider practitioners and policy-makers: Social care practitioners and policy-makers in Wales – Social Care Roadshow – 23 May 2023.
  Practitioners, academics and managers at the National FGC and Lifelong Links Network meetings (FRG network) – June and December 2023.
  A webinar organised by a FGC co-ordinator from a case study site – 25 September 2023.
• Social care academics Other academics involved in NIHR-funded studies researching the FGC pathway; other academics involved in other FGC studies not funded by the NIHR: Family VOICE (CASCADE/University of Cardiff) – 16 January 2023, 19 June 2023, 14 February 2024 (conference with a case study site setting).
  Family and group conferencing for adults (FGC Research and Practice network/University of Birmingham) – 19 June 2023, 14 February 2024 (conference with a case study site setting).
  Randomised controlled trial of FGC at pre-proceedings stage (foundations) – 19 June 2023, 14 February 2024 (conference with a case study site setting).
  The theory lead organised a monthly ‘realist social care group’ meeting and to share learning and discuss methodological challenges from the project with other academics that use the realist approach for their research which is still ongoing.
  Conferences: Plymouth Social Work Symposium 2023 – 22–23 June 2023.
  Kempe Conference 2023 – 4 October 2023.
  JUSWAC, 27–29 June 2024.
  WISERD annual conference, 3–4 July 2024.
  ESWRA annual conference, the European Conference for Social Work Research (Vilnius)
  Methods NET conference, 31 October–1 November 2024 (Louvain)

We created bespoke resources to help practitioners and LAs to implement the new practice in their settings:

• An open-access website with an implementation guide, some resources for practitioners (including animation) and narratives around each participating sites journey all along the project as practical case studies.
• An implementation guide (PDF) and link to website circulated to partners (FRG and participating LAs) for further circulation.
• A peer support network for the participating LAs and we hope will provide points of contact for new LAs who wish to develop their own model.

We have also provided free information and guidance to practitioners in other LA sites who we interested in introducing SFGC, at improving the experiences of families using their service and CP outcomes or at knowing more about SFGC pathway.

Study partners such as the FRG will continue to use our research findings to promote implementation of SFGC and keep on reflecting on a practice model via its FGC and Lifelong Links network of practitioners (FGC co-ordinators and social workers). More generally, this work fits with a wider programme of ongoing work to promote the robust implementation of family-led decision-making models.

Impact so far

This new practice aims at helping families and children. The SFGC engages families and their wider networks earlier, in a strengths-based, less traumatic and shaming forum (compared to an ICPC), to empower families to achieve partnership working. Professionals share information prior to the meeting, are known to the family, and more of the family’s network are involved in the plan to keep the child safe. Families are encouraged to present their own plan and speak about what would help them achieve it. Our findings indicate that the families who received this intervention felt benefits compared to what research tells us about practice as usual.

During the study, we supported eight LAs to scope the implementation of a new practice by:

• Creating a peer-to-peer support network;
• Organising regular one-to-one catch-up to support the implementation;
• Organising workshops as a space for practitioners to reflect on their practice;
• Providing resources coproduced with the participating LAs following a practice-learning approach (feedback and presentations from the drop-in sessions and the learning workshops) to support national implementation.

As a result:

• Practitioners had space/time to reflect on their practice and the values that underpinned their work, and become part of a network of LAs seeking to work in similar ways;
• Three LAs were able to implement a SFGC offer. At the end of the study, all three of these LAs were continuing to offer the model;
• Other LAs in England, Wales and Scotland have expressed an interest in introducing the model within their own setting and have been supported by the research team and/or participating LAs to plan their approach to implementation.
• LAs were supported to think about how to achieve successful implementation of innovations aimed at supporting family-led practice.

Future impact

We hope that there will be continued impact from the study, and have planned our dissemination outputs to maximise the potential impact. We hope this will be achieved by:

1. The implementation guide will increase knowledge and understanding among CP services practitioners who want to introduce their own SFGC within their setting, leading to change in practice and therefore improvements to families’ welfare.
2. Publications will increase knowledge and understanding among policy-makers about SFGCs and implementation. We hope this will lead to an improvement in practice and policy around the implementation of family-led decision-making, and increased resources to support implementation more generally in this setting.
3. A finalised programme theory in the form of a logic model and associated narrative for dissemination will help practitioners, policy-makers and researchers to understand how SFGCs can work to achieve key outcomes for families and service. This will lead to an improvement of the design, implementation, delivery and evaluation of SFGCs.

We have already had a further eight LAs in England, four in Wales and three in Scotland who have been in contact for support in developing their own SFGC offer. The research team has offered one-to-one advice and guidance to these LAs, and facilitated their connection with peer LAs implementing their own model. This shows the potential spread of this way of working, which could in turn lead to more families having access to a more participatory and supportive way of working with children’s services.

We have been engaged with policy development work which has recommended the use of family-led decision-making where there are serious concerns about child safety, which is part of the work that has led to the development of the proposed Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (25). We have been involved in raising awareness of FGCs more generally, including the delivery of a webinar for CC Inform (scheduled 29 January 2025) which already has more than 600 registered attendees, delivering lectures to social work students on FGCs, and continuing to offer support and guidance to researchers and practitioners interested in this approach. We hope our continued which could help with uptake of this promising approach in the future.

The wider impact could be improved relationships between communities and children’s services where families see that there is willingness to engage positively and work together to achieve positive outcomes.

Conclusions

This study explored the early implementation of SFGCs across several LAs, using realist evaluation to understand what supported or hindered their use. Findings highlight the strong potential of SFGCs to reduce stigma, empower families, and shift decision-making towards a more collaborative, family-led process. However, challenges such as practitioner hesitancy, limited statutory underpinning, and inconsistent implementation reduced their impact, and the overall significance of the findings of the evaluation. The research also showed that additional supports – such as peer networks, drop-in sessions, and resource-sharing – would have been most effective if built into the implementation strategy from the outset. Overall, SFGCs represent a promising alternative to traditional CP conferences, but their success depends on clear systemic commitment, stronger organisational support, and efforts to embed them into everyday practice. Sustained investment and alignment with policy priorities will be vital to ensure equitable access and long-term adoption of this model.

Glossary

Children and young people In this study, we use the term ‘children and young people’ to refer to individuals under the age of 18 who are being safeguarded. This is in line with the expectations of young people consulted during the study as a more inclusive way of referring to individuals of different ages.

Child in Need A child is defined as ‘in need’ under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, where:

• they are unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for them of services by a local authority
• their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision for them of such services; or
• they are disabled (Children Act 1989)

Child protection ‘Child protection’ is a general term that refers to the actions, policies and procedures that children’s services and other organisations put in place to keep children safe from significant harm. It includes measures for both preventing and responding to abuse and neglect. Child protection is also sometimes called child safeguarding [URL: https://frg.org.uk/get-help-and-advice/what/child-protection/ (accessed 16 February 2026)].

Family Group Conference A Family Group Conference is a family-led decision-making process in which the family and friends network come together to make a plan for a child. The process is supported by an independent co-ordinator who helps the family prepare for the Family Group Conference [URL: https://frg.org.uk/family-group-conferences/what-is-a-family-group-conference (accessed 16 February 2026)].

Family Group Conference co-ordinator Co-ordinator liaises with the family, children and young people, members of the family’s network and other relevant professionals associated with the family to prepare everyone for the Family Group Conference. They also arrange the logistics and chair the meeting. They are independent of the children’s social services and sometimes of the local authority as well.

Family In this study, we use the term ‘family’ to include parent/s or primary carers with parental responsibility in relation to the children and young people being safeguarded.

Family network In this study, we use the term ‘family network’ to include adults who the family considers important to them. The network may include extended family, friends, neighbours or any professionals that work closely with the parent/s or children or young people, for example, therapists, teachers, advocates or others.

Initial child protection conference Following Section 47 enquiries, an initial child protection conference brings together family members (and the child where appropriate), with the supporters, advocates and practitioners most involved with the child and family, to make decisions about the child’s future safety, health and development (Statutory Guidance 2023: 93).

Local authority Local authority is used to refer to the local government children’s services department that has legal statutory duties to children and families. Where there is reasonable suspicion that a child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, local authorities in the United Kingdom have a statutory responsibility of safeguarding the child, which is usually done by child protection services of respective authorities (Children Act 1989).

Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills Ofsted is a non-ministerial department of the United Kingdom government. Ofsted is responsible for inspecting a range of educational institutions, childcare, adoption and fostering agencies and initial teacher training, and regulates early years’ childcare facilities and children’s social care services.

Practitioners In this study, we use the term ‘practitioners’ to refer to children’s social care and Family Group Conference professionals directly involved with safeguarding children and young people.

Professionals In this study, we use the term ‘professionals’ to refer to other professionals involved with safeguarding children and young people, for example, professionals from partner agencies like police, health, education and others.

Safeguarding Family Group Conference Safeguarding Family Group Conferencing is a family-led decision-making process offered to some families as an alternative to an initial child protection conference by certain local authorities in England.

Section 47 A Section 47 enquiry refers to Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 and involves social workers gathering evidence and speaking with the child, family and other relevant professionals to determine if any interventions may be beneficial to the child’s welfare (NSPCC, 2024).

List of abbreviations

• CASCADE: Children’s Social Care Research and Development Centre
• CFIR: Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research
• CiN: Child in Need
• CP: child protection
• CYP: children and young people
• ENPT: Extended Normalisation Process Theory
• FGC: Family Group Conference
• FRG: Family Rights Group
• ICPC: initial child protection conference
• IT: information technology
• LA: local authority
• PPI: patient and public involvement
• RQ: research question
• SFGC: Safeguarding Family Group Conference
• WP: work package