Introduction

According to Payne (1997) social work is shaped by Western socio-cultural contexts as befits its origins, although it recognizes multiculturalism and cultural sensitivity is at the heart of current practice. However, Warden et al. (2017, p. 739) argue that “there is a paucity of research exploring the views of Muslim individuals who are beneficiaries of these services.” Indeed, Scourfield et al. (2013) argue that there is much need to explore social work services with minority faith communities and develop appropriate services. To this end, Barise (2005) has developed a model social workers can use with clients from Muslim backgrounds. This current paper uses a case study approach to explore the use of Family Group Conferences (hereafter known as FGCs), a decision-making model of social work, with British Muslim families.

Family Group Conferences (FGCs) are an approach to both child and adult welfare concerns which involve the wider family in the decision-making process. In the UK, they are more widely used in children’s services but are slowly becoming more utilized with adults (Edwards and Parkinson 2018). In the context of the current paper, their use in Children’s Services will be explored.

FGCs originated in Aotearoa (New Zealand) in the 1980s in response to indigenous communities concerns about social work practice (Connolly, 2004). These concerns included the lack of wider family involvement in decision-making and a poor understanding of indigenous culture. Child welfare and youth offending FGCs were enshrined in legislation in Aotearoa in the 1989 Children, Young People, and the Families Act. UK practice emerged soon after in the early 1990s when they were piloted, evaluated and developed (Edwards, 2007). Since this time they have expanded widely in the UK and according to a 2022 study by Woods et al. are now present in 58.8% of Local Authorities in England.

FGCs take place when a decision needs to be made about the welfare of a child or young person. Traditional social work practice tends toward decisions being made by the social worker in consultation with the family. However, in an FGC the decisions are made by the family in consultation with the social worker and other involved professionals.

Referral and preparation

The FGC process starts with a referral and although many agencies will take multi-agency referrals, the most common source of referral is a social worker (Ashley et al., 2006). The referral should be clear about what question/s need addressing at the FGC and any “bottom line” i.e. the scope and limits of any decision-making, what is not permitted. Once a referral is accepted an “independent” coordinator is appointed who will facilitate both the preparation and the FGC meeting. Some services are in a position to offer a choice of coordinator to match the needs and preferences of the family. This might include a coordinator from a similar cultural and/or faith background as the family. The coordinator will help the family to decide who needs to be at the meeting, they will help to decide date, time, and place of the meeting. Part of the coordinator’s role is to prepare the family for the meeting which includes helping them to understand what needs to be addressed and decided, how they might navigate family tensions and what they might need to help them make a plan.

The FGC meeting

The FGC meeting is held in a neutral venue at a time to suit the family, which is often outside of traditional working hours. The meeting starts with everyone together in an “information giving” stage. Here introductions will be made, ground rules established and the referrer will outline the reasons for the meeting, strengths, concerns, and bottom line. They will also outline any resources they can offer. Anyone else present in a professional capacity will do the same and the family can ask questions and gather any information they might need. Once this stage is complete the family will move into private time. At this point everyone present in a professional capacity including social worker and coordinator will leave the room and give the family unlimited time to make a plan to address the questions and concerns. Once they have this plan they will invite everyone back into the meeting to discuss and agree their plan. This final stage involves the family outlining their plan and the coordinator helping them to expand on any points that are not clear or need more detail. Once this is done, the referrer will be asked to agree the plan. In FGCs plans are expected to be agreed if they are safe, legal and address the concerns. For a full guide to FGCs see Edwards and Parkinson (2018).

As FGCs were developed as a culturally sensitive approach to racist social work practices, it is perhaps surprising that UK FGCs remain underused by global majority groups (Haresnape, 2009). Fatimlehin (2018, p. 146) argues that “the Family Group Conference model is widely agreed to be culturally competent because it takes account of the values, culture and beliefs of the family.” She, however, goes on to argue that the practice is very dependent upon the skill of the FGC coordinator. Perhaps we should also note that it will be dependent upon who is referred into the service. Barn and Das (2016) suggest that global majority families may be less likely to be referred to social work services for a number of reasons and thus less likely to be referred onto FGCs. Fatimlehin (2018) argues that this may be due to a lack of cultural understanding and ethnic diversity on the part of staff, which echoes the concerns raised in the 1988 Puao tea ta tu report (Ministerial Advisory Committee, 1988) which led to the introduction of FGCs in the first place.

Barn and Das (2016) argue that in order to work with global majority families FGC coordinators need cultural knowledge and services need a pool of ethnically diverse coordinators so that families can choose a coordinator from a similar cultural background if they so wish.

Using an FGC approach with British Muslim families clearly requires culturally competent practice. One might argue that our ideal would be to use coordinators who are practicing Muslims or at the very least have an understanding of the traditions of the faith. This article uses a case study approach to discuss the use of the concept of the Mashwarah in FGCs. The Mashwarah is an Islamic term generally defined to mean consultation or deliberation (Masri, 2021) and is sometimes referred to as Shura.

if the problem has a very large impact on mutual benefit then deliberation is needed so that the problem is not seen from one point of view but involves many people from various backgrounds, ethnicities, education and so on who can provide tips and solutions, which will benefit many parties. (Masri, 2021, p. 7396)

Masri goes on to argue that it is based on the principles of equality, justice, and freedom.

This concept of consultation and deliberation would appear to fit well with FGCs, which aim to “consult” with wider family using the principles of all having an equal voice (Edwards and Parkinson 2018) and so the use of the concept of the Mashwarah in FGC practice would in principle be useful in encouraging Muslim families to use a FGC. According to the 2021 census, there were 4 million Muslims in the UK, which constitutes 6.5% of the population and making Islam the 2^nd largest religion in the country. Additionally, the same census found that 84.5% of Muslims were under 50 (compared with 62% of the overall population) which means proportionally more children and arguably a greater use for child welfare FGCs. There are no national statistics available for the number or proportion of Muslim families that use FGC services. However, recent data collected from one Local Authority (Edwards & Bonham, 2025) suggested that 78% of referrals to their FGC service were white British with only 5.5% Asian and a further 3.5% white Asian. Data on religion was not collected but ethnicity data would suggest that the number of referrals for Muslim families was relatively low. A skilled FGC coordinator utilizing the principles of the Mashwarah could encourage further participation.

Method

One of the authors has drawn from their own experience of being a coordinator working for an Early Help FGC service in a Metropolitan Borough in North West England. The Borough is ethnically diverse with a population which is 73.6% White British, 19.4% Asian, 3.1% Black, 3.1% mixed, and 1.5% other, according to the 2021 census (Office for National Statistics). The service has been in operation for 15 years and employs nine FGC coordinators. The coordinator is a practising Muslim from a Pakistani background. The case studies have been thoroughly anonymized, and any identifying details have been changed. Both authors have practice experience with FGCs and have used this practice wisdom alongside research evidence to examine and analyze the case studies and discuss their implications for FGC practice.

As with all qualitative work, case studies and organic analysis methods can be challenged for lack of objectivity and generalizability (see Robson, 2011 for a more detailed analysis). The approach is open to subjective generalizations based upon a small amount of data which makes it difficult to draw conclusions (Creswell, 2014). However, the case study approach may be applicable to social work related fields as it allows us to analyze individual circumstances and experiences (Gilgun 1994) and to explore a ‘phenomenon in context’ (Robson, 2011, p. 136) such as FGCs in practice, a flexible approach is required.

Case study one

I was involved in a case to coordinate a Family Group Conference (FGC) following a school referral to social care. The concern came after the family’s 13-year-old daughter disclosed that her parents had locked her in her room, taken her phone away, and stopped her from contacting her friends. When I met with the family, they explained that their daughter had returned home late one evening without telling them where she had been, and they had grounded her due to concerns for her safety and the influence of certain peers.

The family, of Indian Muslim background, were initially very reluctant to engage. There was a strong sense of shame around being involved with social care, which they felt carried stigma in their community. This was made worse by past experiences where they felt professionals did not understand their culture or faith, and by language barriers that had left them feeling judged and excluded.

When I explained the purpose and principles of the FGC, the parents were hesitant, particularly around involving wider family members. They worried it would lead to gossip or judgment, and this made them unsure about the process. To help address this, I made a link between the FGC and Mashwarah, the Islamic practice of consulting one another in times of difficulty. I explained that Mashwarah encourages turning to trusted family or community members for support, wisdom, and advice when facing challenges, something very similar to the aims of an FGC.

As they recognized Mashwarah, this comparison helped shift their perspective. What initially felt like an imposed intervention started to feel more aligned with their own values and beliefs. They began to see the FGC not as a threat to their parenting, but as a respectful and structured way to seek guidance and support from those they trusted.

Framing the FGC in this way was a turning point. The connection between their faith and the core principles of the FGC, voluntary participation, family-led planning, and respect for cultural context, meant they could approach the process from a place of confidence instead of defensiveness. They appreciated that they would be leading the meeting and deciding who to involve. This helped them feel more in control and more comfortable taking part.

The family chose to invite two maternal uncles and both grandmothers to the meeting, and agreed that their daughter should be involved too – recognizing that Mashwarah, like the FGC, values including those directly affected.

At the FGC itself, the family were fully engaged. They approached the meeting with a sense of dignity and purpose, not as something to be ashamed of, but something they could take pride in. During their private family time, they were respectful and thoughtful, particularly around their daughter’s needs. They agreed on a plan that included clear boundaries and appropriate consequences, which both parents and the daughter supported. The extended family offered to monitor the situation, and they all agreed to hold further Mashwarahs if challenges came up.

The family plan focused on setting clear boundaries in a way that felt fair and collaborative. Together, the parents and their daughter agreed on specific expectations around curfews, phone use, and time spent with friends. For example, they agreed on a set time for her to be home in the evenings, a limit on how long she could use her phone each day, and more open communication about where she would be and who she was with. The plan also included agreed consequences if these boundaries were not respected, such as handing her phone to her parents for a set period of time or having privileges like going out restricted temporarily. These consequences were not imposed punitively but discussed openly, with the daughter’s input, as a way of encouraging trust and accountability. The Uncles and Grandmothers offered to help monitor and support this by checking in regularly and being available to mediate if needed. The social worker reviewed and accepted the plan.

By introducing a concept that was familiar, meaningful, and culturally relevant, I was able to reframe the FGC as something empowering rather than stigmatizing. This not only helped the family engage, but allowed them to see the process as an extension of their own values. It showed how powerful culturally informed practice can be in building trust and supporting meaningful participation.

Case study two

I was asked to coordinate a Family Group Conference (FGC) for a 14-year-old boy after a referral from school to Social Care. The concern was raised when a teacher noticed bruising on the young person’s arm. While the parents denied physically hurting him, the father acknowledged grabbing his son’s arm while removing him from a situation that was escalating. Both parents also expressed that they were struggling with his behavior and that he was becoming increasingly challenging.

The family, of Pakistani Muslim heritage, lived in a multigenerational household with the paternal grandparents. While the UK-born parents spoke fluent English and held more modern views, the grandparents, who spoke Urdu and Punjabi, followed more traditional approaches, particularly around parenting and discipline. This created some tension between the generations.

When social care first became involved, the family were reluctant to engage. They expressed feeling deeply ashamed and believed that professionals were interfering in their family life and undermining their parenting skills. The case was escalated to Child Protection after their continued refusal to engage.

I was allocated the case and on my initial visit I invited both the parents and grandparents to be part of the discussion. Although they were wary, they listened and showed an interest in the principles of the FGC. However, they were clear that they did not want to involve wider family members. They feared being judged and ridiculed if others became aware of the involvement of social services, and this fear made them hesitant to share the situation more broadly.

To help bridge this gap, I introduced the idea of Mashwarah, the Islamic practice of mutual consultation. They were already familiar with its religious significance and its use in seeking advice and guidance during times of difficulty. I explained that the FGC, in many ways, mirrors Mashwarah, it offers a structured space where families can come together, discuss concerns, and reach shared solutions. Framing the FGC in this way seemed to make sense to them, and they began to view it not as an imposed process, but as something rooted in their faith and values.

This shift in perspective had a real impact. The grandfather, who initially seemed most skeptical, proposed inviting not only extended family members, three paternal uncles and aunts and two maternal uncles and aunts, but also their local Mosque Imam. The Imam was someone the family respected deeply and had a strong spiritual connection with. After speaking separately with the young person, he also agreed to take part in the FGC and was happy for the suggested family members and the Imam to be involved.

On the day of the meeting, the Imam took an active role and helped contextualize the FGC by drawing on Islamic teachings about Mashwarah. He highlighted the importance of consultation, compassion, mutual respect, and shared responsibility, principles that closely mirrored the aims of the FGC. His presence and words appeared to give the family a greater sense of reassurance and purpose. They approached the meeting with humility and thoughtfulness, viewing it not as a judgment, but as an opportunity to reflect, repair relationships, and grow closer as a family, while also finding comfort in seeing it as a meaningful religious act.

During their private family time, they listened to each other with respect and collaborated to develop a plan that recognized each person’s role while keeping the young person’s needs at the heart of it. The son shared how he had been feeling, and his voice was heard throughout the process. The plan included strategies around managing conflict, strengthening communication with each other, and seeking support from the family and the Imam when needed.

The plan included practical strategies for managing conflict and improving communication. For example, the family agreed that during moments of tension, the young person could go to his maternal aunt’s home, which they identified as a safe, calming space, to give everyone time to de-escalate. The parents agreed to avoid physical handling during challenging moments and instead use non-confrontational approaches, such as lowering their tone, and revisiting the issue later when emotions had settled. The family also committed to a weekly check-in every Friday, facilitated by the Imam when possible, where each member could share how they were feeling, and raise any concerns.

Discussion

The two case studies illustrate the value of an extensive knowledge of cultural traditions and concepts when working with families in social care. This is pertinent since according to Schmid and Sheikhzadegan (2022) research on Islamic social work is scant and Shaw (2018, p. 414) argues that social work is often seen as anti-religious and generally there is an “uneasy relationship between social work and its religious origins” and thus social work often sees religion as a “private affair” which does not impact on practice (Schmid and Sheikhzadegan 2022, p. 3). Yet Chaney and Church (2007) argue that alongside cultural competency social workers also need to build up their ‘spiritual competency (p 39) in order to respond to the needs of the people they work with.

A number of studies have found that social workers lack specific training in culture and faith and have therefore argued for a need for further training in this sphere (Furness & Gilligan, 2010, Furness and Gilligan 2014). Moreover Ross-Sheriff (2017) argues that knowledge of specific faiths is essential when working with people who follow that faith. Scourfield et al. (2013) argue that this may well include collaborating with religious service providers, which can be seen clearly in Case Study Two where the family invited the Imam to their FGC.

A study by Warden et al. (2017) found that Muslim social work services clients felt that their culture being understood and being able to talk about their religion were important factors in terms of their satisfaction with services. For example, when discussing counseling services the counselor “said similar things to the GP but I’m not sure that because it came from a British White Doctor it maybe wasn’t taken on board” (p. 745). We could potentially see that the cultural background of the FGC coordinator might have a similar impact as this example.

FGCs are a specific type of social work intervention-one that centralizes family decision-making in every area of the process. This should include decisions on who is invited to the FGC, when and where to hold the meeting, what type of food to eat at the meeting as well as the social care decisions they make on the day. One might therefore argue that FGCs are an approach that respects culture and prioritizes family voices (O’Shaughnessy et al., 2010). The approach is based upon inviting wider family which is consistent with collectivist cultural systems (Fatimilehin & Hassan, 2010) and is able to incorporate cultural practices and values into the process (Sheets et al., 2009). Families can choose to make worship or other cultural practices part of their FGC.

According to Ashley et al. (2006) in the FGC toolkit

the coordinator has a responsibility to identify and address issues of race, gender, and culture and to respond positively to any particular needs a family may identify. The FGC will be held, if at all possible, in the language chosen by the family.

To this end, families make decisions about who they wish to invite, which, as seen in case study two can sometimes include religious leaders such as an Imam. Coordinators would work with such people to explain the concept of the FGC and to prepare them for the meeting. Such supporters would be seen as a “professional” at the meeting and therefore only included in the 1^st and 3^rd stage of the meeting and not in private family time. As such, they are party to the plan that comes from the meeting and they can advise on how they might support the family but would not be part of the private discussions that they have. As such it needs to be made clear to any professionals that attend in a supportive capacity that the content of the meeting should be treated as confidential unless any safeguarding concerns emerge.

Barn and Das (2016) argue that despite these safeguards and cultural origins FGCs need to guard against complacency and coordinators where possible should be ethnically diverse and, where appropriate, matched to families. They recognize that in small services this is not always possible and that therefore there is a need for cultural knowledge in FGC coordinators. The case studies presented here are from a Local Authority where the 2021 census identified 20 different spoken languages in the region, making Barn and Das’s recommendations on matching and diversity of coordinators impossible and the cultural knowledge required of FGC coordinators extensive. However, a number of organizations and services exist who provide cultural consultancy for FGCs and other social care services. These could be utilized to help services such as this to develop cultural expertise (Crabtree et al., 2008; Edwards & Bonham, 2025).

We must, however, recognize that the British Muslim population is very heterogenous with a myriad of different cultural norms and values. Mukadam et al. (2010) argued that some younger generations of Muslims may wish to practice Islam differently to that practiced by older generations. This is illustrated in Case Study 2 where the coordinator reported that the younger generation “held more modern views, the grandparents … .followed more traditional approaches.” Both of these factors need to be taken into account when services are allocating coordinators to families, alongside the rights of families, within reason and resources to choose their coordinator. This right would ensure that the service adheres to the FGC standards developed by Family Rights Group in 2013 (https://frg.org.uk/family-group-conferences/fgc-accreditation/) which states that wherever possible families should be offered choice of coordinator to reflect their preferences. Families in small communities may not wish to have a coordinator from a similar cultural background and who lives in a similar geographical area.

FGCs may well fit with a number of important factors of Muslim life such as the centrality of family (Carlson et al., 2005) and the mutual interdependence of family members (Barise, 2005). However, this way of life may be waning in contemporary British Muslim culture (Barise, 2003) which means the support that this would engender may also wane. FGCs therefore potentially offer a tool to harness this extended family support. Barise (2005) also argues that Tafakkur (contemplation) is also an important Islamic concept. This fits well with the process of Private family time in an FGC where families have gathered information and then analyze it and plan strategies for tackling the issues.

The case studies illustrate the benefits of cultural knowledge in engaging families in the FGC process by the coordinator utilizing the concept of the Mashwarah in persuading families of both the benefits of the FGC and illustrating similarities between the FGC and a central religious tenet. In order for this to be persuasive the coordinator, at the very least, needed to have an extensive knowledge of the Muslim faith and its concepts. As a practicing Muslim, he has both the knowledge and a commonality which may help to engage the Muslim families he works with. What one might wish to ask here is whether such acceptance would still be possible if the coordinator was not a practicing Muslim but still had “cultural knowledge?” Would the discussion still be as productive and would the family be as receptive to the idea of a FGC? Can a non-Muslim extol the virtues of the Mashwarah? This is difficult to know but begs the question of whether services need to recruit more Muslim coordinators in areas where there are larger numbers of Muslims in the population? Muslim coordinators like Muslim social workers may be useful in engaging families in services where there may be some reluctance. Whilst FGCs are less likely to lead to reluctance due to their voluntary nature, they nevertheless may be subject to some reluctance particularly if families feel that coordinators do not understand their cultural norms. Using cultural references such as the Mashwarah may go some way toward helping families to engage in the process.

Conclusion

Whilst we are unable to generalize from a case study approach, the two case studies discussed illustrate the value of cultural knowledge when working with families to prepare them for a child welfare FGC. Having Muslim coordinators is a useful tool in the FGC process which allows families to discuss their issues with someone who understands their cultural references. Knowledge of the Mashwarah and its use in explaining the FGC process is a useful tool coordinators can use to engage British Muslim families in FGCs. However, we need to guard against assuming that families will always want a coordinator from a similar cultural background and ensure that we offer all families, regardless of culture or ethnicity, appropriate choice where it is available. Further studies in this area might include the views of the family members who took part in the FGC as well as expanding the case study size.