Presentations from 'Promoting Dignity & Rights in Marginalised Communities: Messages from social work research' event

1. Promoting dignity and rights in
marginalised communities:
Messages from social work research
Tuesday 22nd March 2016
#mrcsalford

2. Joe Smeeton
Making Research Count
at The University of Salford
#mrcsalford

3. • National initiative across ten universities in England
• A knowledge broker
• Bringing together academics, practitioners, carers and users to
facilitate the dissemination of social care research and theory
• The University of Salford is the regional hub for MRC in Greater
Manchester
• Support the learning needs of a range of organisations in the sub-
region
Making Research Count (MRC)
#mrcsalford

4. Celebrating World Social Work
Day!
Family Group Conferences: A
Global Approach to Child
Protection
Kate Parkinson, Lecturer in Social Work,
Salford University

5. • Celebrating global approaches to Social Work
• Relevant to Social Work practice locally
• What are Family Group Conferences?
• Presenting research on child protection outcomes from
FGCs across the globe
• Introducing a new typology for examining the use of
FGCs across the globe
• Discussion on where and why outcomes are best
Setting the Scene!

6. • Developed in New Zealand in the late 1980s
• Family led decision making process
• Underlying philosophy – families are the experts
• A family/kinship group/social network develop a plan
for the care or protection of a child or young person
• Used across the globe
• Used in over 40 local authorities in the UK
What are Family Group
Conferences (FGCs)?

7. • Literature review and article for the European Journal of Social
Work
• Focused on 7 countries: UK, Republic of Ireland, USA, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand and Sweden
• Examined literature on the outcomes of FGCs used in child
protection situations
• Differences in defining child protection and what constitutes a
good outcome for children but some key themes emerged
• Developed a typology for understanding the implementation of
FGCs across the globe
International Research

8. • Legal – FGCs have a legislative mandate and are a mandatory
part of the child protection process e.g. New Zealand, some
states in Australia, Republic of Ireland and one province in
Canada.
• Policy – FGCs are recommended as good practice and well
embedded in child protection policy and procedure but they are
not a legal requirement e.g. USA and two provinces in Canada
• Optional – FGCs are recommended as good practice but their use
is optional and an ‘add on’ to existing child protection policy and
procedure e.g. the UK and Sweden (Parkinson, 2015,
unpublished).
The 3 Models

9. • Outcomes for children were better under either the
Legal or the Policy model of implementation – this is
not a surprise!
• UK – where FGCs are used, outcomes are generally
good but the research is patchy and confined to small
geographical areas
• There are barriers to successful implementation of
FGCs
The 3 Models

10. • Existing child protection processes
• Cultures within some teams
• Financial barriers
• Sweden – the situation is similar
• Sundell and Vinnerljung (2004) – paternalistic
approach to child protection
The Barriers

11. • Fewer numbers of children enter Local Authority Care
• An increase in the number of children being safely
cared for within their family following a FGC
• Improved relationships between families and
professionals
• Improved relationships between professionals (an
unintended outcome)
The Key Outcome Themes

12. • Children are more likely to be cared for within
their families following a FGC:
• The Legal Model:
-New Zealand: Maxwell and Robertson (1991)
and Pakura (2003) – almost two thirds of children
remained within the care of their family
The Research Evidence

13. - Australia – Northern Territory and Victoria
– research found that the majority of
children remained in the care of their
families following a FGC (Ban, 1996 and
Arney, McGuinness and Westby, 2012).
The Research Evidence

14. • - The Policy Model:
- USA – Hawai’i – research from 2001 – 2003
demonstrated that two thirds of children
remained within the care of their family (National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges,
2003).
The Research Evidence

15. - Toronto, Canada, 2006 – Comparative
research. Children subject to a FGC were
more likely to remain in the care of their
family – 85% vs 72% (Cunning and
Bartlett, 2006),
The Research Evidence

16. • The Optional Model:
- UK – does have a legislative context to some
extent.
- 2014 – Public Law Outline and Statutory
Guidance
- Children Act 1989 – key principles
The Research Evidence

17. - Morris (2007) – Camden – FGCs were
successful in diverting children away from care
• Sweden – Sundell and Vinnerljung (2004) –
longitudinal study. Outcomes for children
following FGCs were NOT better
• BUT
The Research Evidence

18. • Paternalistic system in Sweden
• Not embedded in child protection practice and
procedures
• Doolan (2007) – for FGCs to be successful
they need to have a legal mandate and be
embedded in child protection process.
The Research Evidence

19. • Children Being Safely Cared for Within their
Extended Families
• The Legal Model:
- Pakura (2003) - families plans were more
successful at keeping children safe than those
designed by professionals.
The Research Evidence

20. - Australia. Harris (2008) outcomes from
FGCs – improved child safety and
increased formal and informal support to
enable families to safely care for their
children.
The Research Evidence

21. • The Policy Model:
- USA, Hawai’i – Walker (2002) - 97% of families
developed safe plans for their children and 99%
of families were not reported for harm or
threatened harm within one year of the
conference
The Research Evidence

22. • The Optional Model:
- UK. Morris (2007) Camden – there
was a significant reduction in the
number of families needing the
support of social work services.
The Research Evidence

23. • Families are better engaged with child
protection processes:
• The Legal Model:
- Republic of Ireland. Brady and Miller (2009)
South Tipperary – significantly improved
relationships between families and services
The Research Evidence

24. • The Policy Model:
- USA. Hawai’i. National Council of Juvenile and
Family Court Judges, (2003) – 82% of
participants in research (2001 – 2003) including
professionals and families reported that the FGC
approach enabled better engagement between
professionals and families.
The Research Evidence

25. • The Optional Model:
- The UK. A key message from the research is
that FGCs have the potential to engage with
families more effectively that traditional child
protection approaches (Marsh and Crow, 1998;
Dalrymple, 2002; Holland et al, 2003; Horan and
Dalrymple, 2004; Holland et al 2005).
The Research Evidence

26. • One of the most significant research findings –
fathers better engaged in child protection
processes.
• Marsh and Walsh (2007). Research into the
Kent FGC service – the majority of families
viewed FGCs as a collaborative process with
professionals.
The Research Evidence

27. • Relationships between professionals
improved:
- USA. Hawai’i. National Council of Juvenile and
Family Court Judges (2003) – 82% of
participants felt that the FGC model helped child
protection workers and other professionals work
closely together to meet the needs of families.
The Research Evidence

28. • FGCs have the potential to lead to better
outcomes for children and young people
subject to child protection procedures and
processes.
• The Munro Report 2011
• Key messages from Serious Case Reviews
(Brandon et al., 2011).
The Significance of this
Research for the UK

29. • The International Federation of Social Work Definition of Social
Work:
‘Social work is a practice-based profession and an academic discipline that
promotes social change and development, social cohesion, and the
empowerment and liberation of people. Principles of social justice, human
rights, collective responsibility and respect for diversities are central to social
work. Underpinned by theories of social work, social sciences, humanities
and indigenous knowledge, social work engages people and structures to
address life challenges and enhance wellbeing.
The above definition may be amplified at national and/or regional levels’
(IFSW, 2014).
The Significance of this
Research

30. • k.p.parkinson@salford.ac.uk
• Twitter - @KateParkinson5
• 0161 295 6545
Happy World Social Work Day!!
Thank you and any questions?

31. • Arney, F., McGuinness, K., and Westby, A. (2012) Report on the
Implementation of Family Group Conferencing with Aboriginal Families in
Alice Springs, Menzies School of Health Research.
• Ban, P. (1996) Implementing and Evaluating Family Group Conferences
with Children and Families in Victoria, Australia in Hudson, J., Maxwell,
G. and Galway, B. (eds.) (1996) Family Group Conferences:
Perspectives on Policy and Practice, The Federation Press: Criminal
Justice Press.
• Brady, B. and Miller, M. (2009) Barnados Family Welfare Conference
Service South Tipperary Evaluation Report, Child and Family Research
Centre, National University of Ireland.
References

32. • Brandon, M; Sidebotham, P; Bailey, S; Belderson, P; Hawley, C; Ellis, C;
and Megson, M. (2011) New Learning on Serious Case Reviews: a two
year report from 2009 – 2011, Centre for Research on the Child and
Family in the School of Social Work and Psychology, University of East
Anglia.
• Cunning, S. and Bartlett, D. (2006) Family Group Conferencing:
Assessing the long-term effectiveness of an alternative approach in child
protection, Center of Excellence for Child Welfare: Toronto.
• Dalrymple, J. (2002) Family Group Conferences and Youth Advocacy: the
participation of children and young people in family decision making,
European Journal of Social Work, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 287 – 289.
References

33. • Harris, N. (2008) Family Group Conferencing in Australia 15 years on:
Child Abuse Prevention, No. 27, pp. 1-19. Litchfield (Maxwell, G.M. and
Robertson, J.P. (1991) Family Group Conferences: Key Elements, Paper
Presented to Mission of St. James and St. John: Melbourne, Australia,
10th June.
• Holland, O., O’Neill, S., Scourfield, J. and Pithouse, A. (2003) Outcomes
in family group conferences for young people on the brink of care: A
Study on child and family participation, Cardiff University School of Social
Sciences.
• Horan, H. and Dalrymple, J. (2004) Promoting the Participation Rights of
Children and Young People in Family Group Conferences, London:
Barnardos.
References

34. • Doolan, M. (2007) Working Towards an Effective agency mandate for
family group conferences, in Ashley, C. and Nixon, P. (eds.) (2007)
Family Group Conferences – what next?: Policies and Practices for the
Future, Family Rights Group.
• Holland, O., O’Neill, S., Scourfield, J. and Pithouse, A. (2005)
Democratising the Family and State? The Case of Family Group
Conferences in Child Welfare, Journal of Social Policy, Vol, 34, No. 1, pp.
59-77.
• Marsh, P. and Crow, G (1998) Family Group Conferences in Child
Welfare, Blackwell Science Ltd.
References

35. • Marsh, P. and Walsh, D. (2007) Outcomes of Family Group Conferences:
More Than Just the Plan? Outcome Report for Kent Family Group
Conference Service.
• Morris, K. (2007) Camden FGC Service: An Evaluation of Service Use
and Outcomes, University of Birmingham.
• Munro, E. (2011) The Munro Review of Child Protection Final Report: A
Child -Centred System, London: The Stationary Office.
• (20120 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (2003)
Empowering Families in Child Protection Cases: An Implementation
Evaluation of Hawai’i’s Ohana Conferencing Program, The Center for
Community Partnerships in Child Welfare: New York.
References

36. • Pakura, S. (2003) A Review of Family Group
Conferences 13 years on, Social Work Review,
Vol 15, Part 3, pp.3 -7.
• Parkinson, K. (forthcoming) Family Group
Conferences and Child Protection: A Review of
International Research Outcomes, European
Journal of Social Work
References

37. Sarah Pollock, University of Salford
Using qualitative research methodologies
to inform social work practice:
Learning from older Pakistani women

38. • Background
• Literature Review
• Narrative methods
– Co-construction
– Free association
– Dialogic/performance analysis
• Adult assessment processes
Outline

39. • Qualified social worker, in ethnically diverse local authority
• Lack of ethnic diversity in local authority service user population
• Want to find out why = PhD proposal
• ‘Underrepresentation of Minority Ethnic Groups in Intermediate
Care’
Background

40. • Umbrella term – residential units, hospital at home, reablement,
telecare, day hospitals…
• Short term, step-up & step-down
• Suitability assessed via multi-disciplinary team
• Government policy since 2001
– National Beds Inquiry (1999)
– National Service framework for Older People (2001)
– Halfway Home? (2009) extended timeframes & added exceptions
for some groups
What is Intermediate Care?

41. • Nationally (E&W) South Asian 5.3%;
– Indian 2%
– Pakistani 2.5%
– Bangladeshi 0.8%
• Research Area 18.1%;
– Indian 0.7%
– Pakistani 10.1%
– Bangladeshi 7.3%
2011 Census Data

42. • Research Area:
– Indian 0.56%
– Pakistani 0.56%
– Bangladeshi 0.16%
• Real terms:
– 8/1537 Bed-based
– 31/1517 Home-based
National Audit of Intermediate
Care 2012(NAIC) Data

43. Not going
to service
Not
included in
evaluation
of service
Service
not
suitable for
needs
Cycle of Exclusion

44. • Articles referred specifically to ‘Christianity’ when discussing
religion
• Research asked for ‘English speaking’ participants only
• When consulting with minority ethnic communities only
‘community elders’ were actually consulted
• 'there is no evidence that provision responsive to Black and
Minority Ethnic communities has been addressed‘
• Service users who were not Christian, or could not speak English
were silenced.
• Very little social work led research
Literature Review

45. • Qualitative method
• Narrative interviews = one open question;
– ‘Can you tell me about a specific memorable time that you have
accessed either health or social care services in this country?’
– ‘tell me about an average day/week…
• Allow the individual to talk and they will come to what is important to them
• ‘following people down their paths’
• Interviews take more than one one-off visit – about relationship building
Dialogic/Performance Analysis
Catherine Koler-Riessman

46. • Co-construction
‘all investigators… lack access to another’s unmediated experiences; we
have instead materials that were constructed by socially situated individuals
from a perspective and for an audience’ Riessman C, K (2008)
• Recognising both the researcher's influence and the importance
of socially constructed expectations and rules
• Treating whole narrative as one rather than fragmenting
• Multiple readings = multiple interpretations
Analysis of narrative
interviews

47. • The Care Act (2014)
• Assessing adult care needs
• Service user wellbeing and choice;
‘Local authorities should adopt a flexible approach that allows for a focus
on which aspects of wellbeing matter most to the individual concerned’
(http://www.skillsforcare.org.uk/Document-library/Standards/Care-Act/learning-and-
development/introduction-and-overview/wellbeing-handout.pdf)
Practice relevance:
Care Needs

48. • First legal duties for local authorities to investigate
• Following safeguarding adult processes means involving
individual at all points
‘The Act signals a major change in practice - a move away from the process-
led, tick box culture to a person-centred social work approach which
achieves the outcomes that people want’
(http://www.skillsforcare.org.uk/Document-library/Standards/Care-Act/learning-and-
development/introduction-and-overview/adult-safeguarding-handout.pdf)
Practice Relevance:
Safeguarding Adults

49. http://www.mycareinbirmingham.org.uk/home-
page.aspx
Examples from Care Act
assessments…

50. • Austerity
• Resource Allocation System (RAS)
• Neoliberalism
– Individualism
– Consumerism
– Choice
• Premised on:
– idea that people can answer questions about ‘what I want’
– recovery
– Language of ‘outcomes’
Analysis of approach

51. Elements of
Narrative Analysis
Current Assessment Narrative Assessment
‘following down their
paths’
Pre-prescribed pro-forma
Procedural, time limited, outcome
focussed with restricted options
Clearer link to ‘true’ person
centred approach, might miss
information – important to who?
Co-construction – role
of the researcher
Self assessment
Telephone screening
One-off assessment visit
No opportunity for relationship
building
Acknowledged in interpretation
of narrative therefore can be
explored further with SU
Socially constructed
expectations
Expected to make life changing
choices immediately, choose from
limited options
Acknowledged and explored
Treat narrative as a
whole
Each answer ‘scored’ and
accumulates funding separately
Multiple professionals contribute
Truer ‘holistic’ picture of life
Individual as expert – in
subconscious
Multiple readings =
multiple interpretations
Once completed assessment &
person passed to another team
Need to decide immediately on
response
Time to return to SU and
explore analysis
Factors to consider when using
dialogic/performance analysis for
Social work assessment

52. • Narrative approach to social work needs assessment &
dialogic/performance analysis of assessment narrative
• Transparency about interpretation
• Recognition that not everyone can consciously identify what they
want as an ‘outcome’
• More contact with service users
• More interpretation and reflection on information provided during
assessment
• Pilot schemes…
Conclusions

53. • S.a.Pollock@Salford.ac.uk
• Twitter: @SarahPollock123
• Tel: 0161 295 2288
Contact:

54. Refreshments
and Networking Break

55. Jenna Murray de López, University of Salford
(Dis)embodied knowledge and the
ethics of engagement

56. Panel discussion
• Jenna Murray de López
• Joe Smeeton (chair)
• Kate Parkinson
• Sarah Pollock
#mrcsalford

57. Joe Smeeton, University of Salford
Conference Close