American Humane

What Have We Learned About Group Conferencing and Case Management Practices?

Marilee Sherry process. I also began to wonder if the family group conferencing experience affected the workers’ Marilee Sherry, MSW, RSW, began practicing as and managers’ case management practices with the coordinator for family group conferencing at other . the Children’s Aid Society of Brant in Brantford, Ontario, Canada in 2005. In 2006, she became an During my time as a Children’s Aid Society Ontario family group conferencing trainer and manager, I started to realize that sometimes Ontario family group conferencing mentor for I needed to rethink my view of a family, coordinators in training. Prior to becoming the past decisions, or decisions made during conferencing coordinator, she spent 5 years as a the preparation phase. For example, during front-line welfare worker and manager with the preparation phase for one family group the Children’s Aid Society of Brant, delivering conference, the coordinator advised me that some child welfare protection services in community- members did not agree with one based settings. of the agency’s bottom lines. The worker and I arranged a meeting with these family members, “Family group conferencing changes you and we agreed to change the bottom line based forever after you have experienced one.” 1 on the new information available to us. Because Over the past 6 years, I have been privileged to of this experience, I became more careful about participate in many family group conferences2, stating the agency’s bottom lines for other both as a Children’s Aid Society3 manager and as families. a family group conference coordinator. During I also began to notice that sometimes things this time, I began to wonder about the impact of went smoothly during the preparation phase and agency workers’ and managers’4 case management the conference and other times there was quite practices5 and decisions with a family and how a rocky road before and during the conference. these impacted the family group conferencing I started to wonder about the impact of the

1All italicized quotes in this article are from focus-group participants.

2Family group conferencing is a family-led decision-making process which has been offered to families in Ontario since 1998. The model of family group conferencing practiced in Ontario is based on the Maori model of decision making. It includes an independent coordinator, comprehensive preparation of participants, private family time during the conference, and embracing the family’s culture throughout the process.

3Children’s Aid Societies are the mandated and legislated child welfare agencies in Ontario.

4For the purposes of this paper, the term worker will refer to the child welfare professional with case management responsibilities for a family receiving services from the Children’s Aid Society of Brant. The term manager will refer to the person to whom the worker reports.

5The case management model of social work practice includes assessment and service planning with a client, linking the client to resources and making referrals to services, and advocacy on the client’s behalf.

Page 20 Volume 23 / Number 4 Protecting Children

Children’s Aid Society case management practices During my time as a Children’s Aid Society and decisions prior to the referral to family group manager, I also wondered how to support and conferencing, during the preparation phase help prepare the worker who would be attending for family group conferencing, and during the a family group conference. As a coordinator, I conference itself. have continued to wonder how to help prepare the worker and manager. I sense that the relationship At times, I have reflected back on my work the worker and manager have with a client family, as a front-line worker, before family group which is supported by the worker’s and manager’s conferencing was available in my agency, and case management practices and decisions, affects realized that if it had been available, I probably the family group conference preparation, the would have worked differently with families and conference itself, and plan implementation in perhaps made different decisions. profound ways.

As a family group conference coordinator, I Introduction have continued to ponder these questions as I coordinated many conferences with families, Child welfare practice in Ontario is undergoing their friends, and service providers, including considerable change as a result of new provincial the Children’s Aid Society worker and manager. policy initiatives which came into effect in 2006. I have wondered why some referrals did not Among other changes, there is an increased proceed to a conference and whether the worker’s emphasis on collaborative practice with families. and manager’s case management practices Family group conferencing is now embedded in and decisions had an influence on referrals not Ontario’s policy and legislation. However, policy proceeding. I started to have a clearer sense about and legislative change do not necessarily result the importance of the case management practices in practice changes in the field. It may be helpful and decisions and their impact on the family to identify the practices that help effect these group conferencing process. changes, so these practices can be encouraged in transforming child welfare practice. For example, on several occasions a has had difficulty with the way one of the agency’s There is a considerable body of literature about bottom lines was worded. If the worker and the experience of family member participants in manager arranged to meet with the parent to family group conferencing and evaluation of the discuss the parent’s difficulties, usually the practice (Helland, 2005; Pennell, 2003; Schmid & differences were resolved and a family group Goranson, 2003; Stevens, 2003). Merkel-Holguin, conference was held. If the worker and manager Nixon, and Burford (2003), after reviewing the were not willing to do this, the family group body of family group decision making research, conference did not proceed. found that social workers and service providers are satisfied with the family group conferencing On other occasions, a family member has process and that social worker rates of referral been upset with past decisions the agency has fluctuate, possibly based on the social workers’ made, usually regarding visits with his or her values and philosophy. There is, however, very child. When the worker and manager met with little in the literature about the child welfare the family member before the conference to case management practices that support family try to resolve the difficulties, the conference group conferencing or the impact of family usually proceeded relatively smoothly. When group conferencing on the Children’s Aid Society the worker and manager did not meet with the workers’ and managers’ practice in general. This family member, usually the circle had to deal summary of views from Children’s Aid Society with the outstanding issue with the agency at workers and managers in Brantford, Ontario, the conference, and at times this became quite contentious. Page 21 Volume 23 / Number 4 American Humane

begins to address this need and responds to the In 2005, the coordinator position became following questions: a full-time management position within the Brant CAS child protection staff complement of • How has participation in family group approximately 200 staff members, with provisions conferencing influenced child welfare social in place to protect the coordinator’s independence workers in their work with families? from the child welfare mandate. This is in keeping with the Brant CAS’s efforts to provide seamless • What child welfare case management service to their client families (Children’s Aid practices support family group conferencing? Society of Brant, 2004). • Does family group conferencing transform By the fall of 2007, approximately 60 family child welfare case management practices? group conferences had been held, giving the Children’s Aid Society of Brant and the social work staff at the Brant CAS a body of Ontario Child Welfare Context for Family experience to reflect upon and to learn from in Group Conferencing6 looking at how family group conferencing has influenced its case management practices. Family Group Conferencing and the Children’s Aid Society of Brant Ontario Policy and Legislation Changes Affecting Family Group Conferencing Practice The Children’s Aid Society of Brant (henceforth at the Children’s Aid Society of Brant referred to as the Brant CAS) is located in Brantford, Ontario, and serves approximately In July 2005, the Ontario Ministry of Children 140,000 people in Brant County. The Brant and Youth Services (2005) announced a major CAS has a proud history policy shift that came to be of forming partnerships known as the “transformation within the local community Family group agenda.” The goal of the transformation agenda was (Children’s Aid Society of conferencing offered Brant, 2004), developing to expand the intervention community-based child a new way to enter options to better meet the welfare initiatives (Frensch, into partnership with complex needs of children Cameron, & Hazineh, 2005), families and families referred to and supporting children living child welfare services. with kin. In October 2002, the Among others, the expanded Brant CAS decided to offer intervention options included family group conferencing to differential response and families receiving their services. Family group strategies to reduce delays in court and encourage conferencing is in keeping with the Brant CAS’s alternatives to court. One of the anticipated philosophy and values of collaborative work with results of the transformation agenda is more families and the commitment to strengthen and family and community involvement in planning value families. Family group conferencing offered (Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies a new way to enter into partnership with families. [OACAS], 2007), which is consistent with family group conferencing practice and values.

6At the Children’s Aid Society of Brant, this service is called family group decision making, but for the purposes of this discussion, it will be called family group conferencing.

Page 22 Volume 23 / Number 4 Protecting Children

During the policy development by the can “live with” the Children’s Aid Society view of Child Welfare Secretariat (2005), family group the family’s challenges, their child welfare worker conferencing was included as an approved makes a referral to family group conferencing. alternative dispute resolution mechanism under Usually, client families learn about family group differential response. The goals of alternative conferencing through their worker, which means dispute resolution are to reduce delays in child that if the worker does not inform them about welfare court proceedings and to reduce the family group conferencing, it is unlikely that they number of child welfare cases that go to trial will know about this option. It is hoped that over (OACAS, 2007). time, the local community and service provider community will have greater knowledge of and The legislation governing child welfare services experience with family group conferencing and in Ontario, The Child and Family Services Act that client families will start to self-refer to family (1990), was amended as part of the child welfare group conferencing. transformation agenda and now requires a Children’s Aid Society to consider an alternative Children’s Aid Society of Brant Social Work dispute resolution if a child is or may be in need of Staff’s Experience With Family Group protection. Conferencing

Prior to the legislative changes in 2006, referrals With the implementation of the transformation to family group conferencing at the Brant CAS agenda in 2006, the Brant CAS staff is expected were encouraged but not mandated. During this to work in a collaborative manner with client time, referrals tended to be clustered among a few families. Family group conferencing is viewed protection teams who enthusiastically embraced as a collaboration with client families and their this service. This seems to be consistent with extended family and friends (Ontario Association the international experience reflected in recent of Children’s Aid Societies, 2007; Ontario Ministry publications when family group conferencing is of Children and Youth Services, 2005). not legislated and essentially remains a fringe service offered to a few families (Nixon, Burford, Prilleltensky, Pierson, and Nelson (2001) & Quinn, 2005). propose a model for promoting family wellness and preventing child maltreatment: In the 18 months following the Ontario policy and legislative changes, the Brant CAS has been • The two foundational blocks are vision and experiencing an increase in referrals to family values and context and etiology. group conferencing and a more even distribution • Building on these two blocks are the of referrals across the protection teams in the interventions, which include policies and agency. This is to be expected, given the policy, programs. legislative, and financial supports now in place for family group conferencing. It is also encouraging • The final block is implementation and that there are now more referring workers and diffusion. managers using case management practices that encourage family-led decision making through The family group conferencing program uses family group conferencing. this framework and is supported by the policy and legislative changes in Ontario, which grew out of a The referral criteria for family group vision for child welfare and the surrounding time conferencing at the Brant CAS have remained and context. It seems that the Brant CAS, along fairly consistent during the past 5 years. If a family with all other child welfare agencies in Ontario, is is interested in family group conferencing, feels at the implementation and diffusion stage of these that there is a crisis or a decision to be made, and policy and program changes. One important

Page 23 Volume 23 / Number 4 American Humane

aspect of implementation is to promote practices Focus Group Details that support the particular policy or program being introduced, within the organizational To explore the case management practices context. that support family group conferencing and identify which practices to encourage in future Given this context, the Brant CAS was interested collaborative work with families, the family group in learning what case management practices conference coordinator at the Brant CAS (Marilee had worked in the past to support family group Sherry) invited all workers and managers who conferencing and how to support further growth had participated in a family group conference in collaborative case management work with over the past 5 years to attend a focus group families, including family group conferencing. in October 2007. Invitations were sent to 12 The chosen way to do this was through an April managers and 19 workers. Nine staff participated, 2007 focus group with the management staff, with six attending a focus group, one responding using the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities in writing, and two meeting individually with and Threats (SWOT) model. One of the the coordinator. Six participants were managers opportunities identified during this focus group and three participants were workers, which is was, “Case management done differently — approximately a 30% response rate. While the greater expectation on case manager to do things response was lower than anticipated, the timing differently in a collaborative manner/gain skill of the focus group may have been a factor. set.” The feedback from this focus group helped During the same period as the focus group, staff define the questions addressed in this discussion. were required to attend many different training sessions regarding changes in child welfare. This discussion will focus on the front-line Participants’ experience with family group case management practices that support the conferencing ranged from participating in one implementation and diffusion of family group conference to participating in 15, with an average conferencing as one of the policy changes, rather participation rate of 4.5 family group conferences than on the broader questions of the vision and per participant. context of the policy changes, the content of the policy changes themselves, or the practice The family group conferencing coordinator paradigm in general. It is recognized that many facilitated the focus groups, recorded responses influences, including the ones mentioned, affect as they were given, identified the themes from front-line case management practices in child the responses given, and reviewed the results welfare. with focus group participants to ensure that their responses were reported accurately. Based on the SWOT analysis from the April 2007 focus group, Sherry (2007) reviewed Brant Two questions guided the focus groups: CAS staff feedback (evaluations) after a family group conference and identified several themes: 1. What case management practices support (a) increased awareness of family strengths; family group conferencing? (b) satisfaction with the plan; and (c) increased 2. How has your experience with family satisfaction with Children’s Aid Society’s group conferencing influenced your case role. This is consistent with findings reported management practices with other families? elsewhere (Helland, 2005; Merkel-Holguin et al., 2003). Participants provided many varied responses and examples for the first question, but seemed to struggle somewhat in articulating the impact that family group conferencing has had on their

Page 24 Volume 23 / Number 4 Protecting Children

case management practices with other families. conference and then feeling affirmed after the This may be due to the way the question was conference in why they came to work that day. worded or due to the tendency to see family group conferencing as separate from everyday Based on their responses, focus group case management practices. There is, however, participants seemed to struggle somewhat to an emerging awareness among the participants find the words to describe the impact of the about how family group conferencing has affected experience. However, it seems to have been a their own practice. powerful and positive experience for them. This is in keeping with previous Impact of the Family Group findings (Merkel-Holguin et al., Conference Experience 2003; Sherry, 2007).

“FGC [family group “A bridge happens during Philosophy and Values conferencing] is emotional FGC. The success of FGC “FGC needs to fit your own for the worker. Sometimes has a calming effect” family members call the personal philosophy, for both worker to vent, after the the worker and the manager, or conference is over.” it will not fly. You have to have a personal belief in the strengths of families, “When FGC is a positive experience, it helps a and a natural humility about who you are and worker realize how powerful and able a family what you can offer.” is to look after their kids.” “FGC gives a different message to the child.” “A bridge happens during FGC. The success of FGC has a calming effect.” “FGC has a humbling effect on service providers and you can see the development in the workers In reviewing the focus group feedback, in their ability to let go of the belief in their the impact of the family group conferencing own expertise and in trusting the potential for experience seemed to be an important factor for healthy supports in a family.” the group in moving toward a more collaborative practice with both the families who had Participants stressed the importance of the conferences and the other families served. They belief in family support and having faith in the did not provide much feedback about the impact family’s ability to make decisions. They also spoke of implementing the family group conference about family group conferencing as affirming plan with families except to identify some their basic belief in the shared responsibility for systemic challenges they encountered. This may the safety of children. be due to the way the question was worded or Participants also expressed an awareness that due to the developmental stage of family group their own practice was being assessed by family conferencing at the Brant CAS. members. This may be linked to a humbling Participants talked about their own emotional effect and a sense of vulnerability felt during the reactions to the family group conference and conference itself, which they expressed in their the importance of managing their own anxiety, responses. knowing themselves and what sets them off, Over the past several years in Ontario, child and preparing themselves emotionally for the welfare practice has focused on investigative first part of the conference. Participants also risk assessment practices, with the child welfare talked about feeling as if everything was on hold service provider being the expert in identifying during the preparation process for a family group risk and forming plans to keep the child safe. The

Page 25 Volume 23 / Number 4 American Humane

philosophy and values identified by participants (1999), which may either have shifted or further as supporting family group conferencing are affirmed their philosophy and values. A question collaboration, a focus on strengths, and the belief for possible further exploration may be how the in the family’s ability to make decisions to keep experience of family group conferencing affects their child safe. In many ways, this is in direct the child welfare service provider’s philosophy conflict with how child welfare staff has been and values. trained and has practiced over the past several years. Case Management Practices

The importance of the worker’s and manager’s Connolly and McKenzie (1999) have stressed the philosophy and values is in keeping with Connolly importance of the caseworker’s philosophy and and McKenzie’s (1999) observations that the values being in line with participatory practice. fundamental principles of shared decision- They have also identified some caseworker making practice may be at odds with a service activities that support participatory practice provider’s prior training and philosophy. They while a child welfare agency is involved with a stress the importance of a Children’s Aid Society family. worker’s commitment to the philosophy of family Prilleltensky, Laurendeau, Chamberland, and participation and shared decision-making. Pierson (2001) point out that “values are the Merkel-Holguin et al. (2003) also point out the principles that guide our actions” (p. 125) and importance of the referring worker’s philosophy “are guidelines for thinking and acting in ways and values in making referrals to family group that benefit others” (p. 131). They call those who conferencing. move vision and values into action “practical These comments hint at a re-ordering of the philosophers.” service provider-client relationship to one that The following discussion of case management more closely reflects participatory practice practices identified by the focus group (Connolly & McKenzie, 1999). Given the focus on participants reveal some of the ways they are investigative child welfare practice within a risk being practical philosophers in their work with assessment paradigm in the child welfare field families at the Brant CAS, keeping in mind the for the past several years (Cameron, 2003; Wharf importance of these practices being grounded in 2002), it seems reasonable that the move toward the philosophy and values supporting family-led collaborative practices will be a gradual one. decision-making processes. For some workers and managers, collaborative practice will be rooted in their own philosophy Trusting the process and values. “When the worker presents the idea initially to It seems that somehow the experience of family a family and receives a positive response, these group conferencing affirms its own underpinning are the ones that usually get to a conference. philosophy and values for the focus group After the family has said yes to the conference, participants. It is not clear whether the workers’ there are a lot of questions. This takes time and managers’ philosophy and values shifted for the worker and the worker needs to keep as a result of their experience with family group explaining the steps to the family. The worker conferencing or if family group conferencing fit needs to have a good understanding of what the philosophy and values they already held. It happens at a conference in order to reassure the may be that family group conferencing provided family members.” a way for them to experience participatory practice, as defined by Connolly and McKenzie “It takes time and effort to engage the family in FGC. The timing needs to be right for the

Page 26 Volume 23 / Number 4 Protecting Children

family. The worker may need to revisit it several response may point out the developmental stage times before the family is able and ready to do of family group conferencing practice at the Brant this.” CAS, with the current focus being on participation in the process. Perhaps with more experience, “You have to spend the time and that is hard. It child welfare service providers will be able to takes time for families to start thinking this way articulate the importance of generating hope for and buy in, to open up to other family members family members through participation in the assisting in the decisions.” decision-making process itself.

“Sometimes there are hard questions during Participants identified the importance of being FGC preparation and this may lead to more patient and persistent with the process. They work, but I understand stressed the importance of that it needs to be done for explaining the steps to family the sake of the process.” “It takes time for families members several times, reassuring family members In traditional child to start thinking this way when they become anxious, welfare work, the child and buy in, to open up accepting where the family welfare service provider members are in the process, is the expert and holds a to other family members and working with family great deal of mandated assisting in the decisions” members to carry out the authority. As Connolly and plan. McKenzie (1999) point out, “Just as workers have to In traditional child welfare make a paradigm shift from practice, the child welfare professional decision-making to family decision- service provider is the expert who designs ways making, the family have to make a similar shift” to reduce the risk to a child and then tries to find (p. 87). It may be a new practice for workers and ways to achieve parent cooperation with the managers to trust the family-led decision-making plan made. The case management practice of process. It may also be a challenge, at times, for waiting for family members to work through the family members to believe that they can or will be information and decide if they want to participate given the opportunity to make their own plans to in family group conferencing, revisiting the keep their children safe. process with them, and working with them in carrying out the plan is a new one. It becomes a Participants recognized that increased matter of waiting for the time to be right for the work may be required before the family group family, rather than for the child welfare service conference, but they experienced their job as provider. much less time-consuming after the conference because family members could be redirected to The child welfare service provider needs to their plan. make decisions to support the family’s sense of when the time is right and to advocate with Connolly and McKenzie (1999) discuss the others, both on the child welfare team and in importance in effective participatory practice other service provider agencies, to allow the of the worker’s skill of generating hope. They family this time. This practice also ties in with state, “hope is directly related to the family’s the paradigm shift from plans being made by participation in the process, rather than, the service providers with no meaningful input necessarily, hopefulness with respect to outcome” from family members to plans being led by family (p. 79). The focus group participants did not members with input from service providers articulate this important distinction. This (Merkel-Holguin & Wilmot, 2005). Page 27 Volume 23 / Number 4 American Humane

Awareness of strengths in families model of collaborative child welfare practice as a way of finding the balance between these two “Through FGC, deficits are not the only thing extremes. you see in clients. You can lose sight of the positives.” Between 1998 and 2006, the focus in Ontario leaned more toward the child safety end of the “There needs to be an attitude of openness with pendulum, which tended to families, a looking for focus on a family’s deficits strengths and belief that rather than strengths, in the family can deal with Family group order to prevent an avoidable this.” conferencing may be one child death. The challenge for workers and managers is to “You need to be willing of the only opportunities find the middle ground, where to talk to outside a child welfare service an awareness of the family’s supports like the types of strengths and challenges conversation you would provider has to meet the informs their practice. Focus have at the FGC without members of the client’s group participants seemed to the FGC process. You extended family network identify this challenge in their know families are capable feedback about a realistic view of it — you just have to of a family’s strengths. explore it and trust it.” Family group conferencing is built on the “You learn about issues the family is facing strengths in a family and the belief that the when support people are involved. You have family circle will be able to keep its child safe and a realistic view of the support that people are meet the requirements of the mandated child able to offer.” welfare service. Participants talked about having The Canadian child protection paradigm a realistic view about what family members over the past several years has focused on risk can do to assist after participating in a family and deficits rather than on strengths of family group conference. They also expressed a greater members (Cameron, 2003; Wharf, 2002). Child awareness of the strengths in all the families welfare workers and managers are highly attuned they serve and a greater appreciation for the to their legal responsibilities and the liability that uniqueness of each family after experiencing a goes along with their work. One of their greatest family group conference. fears is that a child will be seriously harmed or Family group conferencing may be one of killed while receiving service from them. the only opportunities a child welfare service Dumbrill (2005) points out the phenomenon provider has to meet the members of the client’s of the pendulum swing in child welfare between extended family network and understand the family preservation and child safety. During dynamics at work in the family. For the worker the family preservation phase, the focus is on and manager, this may be an experience of children remaining with their , and learning to trust the strengths present in a family avoidable child deaths occur. Public outcry over rather than blindly trusting strengths that they child deaths moves the child welfare system are not even sure are present. This realistic view of to a focus on child safety with an inquisitorial a family’s strengths experienced through family practice. This may lead to a public outcry over group conferencing helps alleviate their anxiety the misuse of authority, and the pendulum then about their legal mandate and liability. swings back the other way. Dumbrill proposes a

Page 28 Volume 23 / Number 4 Protecting Children

Widening the circle of engaging in conversation with the wider family system when participating in the family group “You need to be prepared to have conversations conferencing process, which does not usually with the wider family, foster parents, etc.” happen to any great extent in their practice. Practicing in this way includes expanding the “Our practice is to look at who else is important view of “client” to include the wider family system to the child and family, who in the family can and working out the issue of the clients’ consent look after the child if the parents can’t and to share information with their families. what are the barriers to the parent caring for their child. In order to answer these questions, This expanding view of the client seems to be a[n]FGC process makes sense.” particularly challenging during the preparation phase. The challenge may be due, in part, to the “I have a broader understanding of family.” increased anxiety of the worker and manager “FGC changed how I view systems. Family is and the family system as the family group larger than blood family. Just because I do not conference approaches. It may also be because know about family members, it doesn’t mean the worker and manager have not yet experienced that they are not out there.” the strength in the family that becomes evident during the family group conference. Participants stressed the importance of considering who is in the family support system Sometimes during the preparation phase, and actively seeking them out, being willing to a particular family member may challenge have conversations with people in the extended the worker’s and manager’s previously held family, and finding ways to support the foster assessment regarding a child’s safety, and the parents. worker and manager need to be prepared to address these issues as they arise. Other times, Traditional child welfare work tends to focus extended family members may want to resume on working primarily with the parent(s) raising access to the child or have other requests for the the child. Traditional gender roles have given worker. Such requests require the worker and the responsibility of raising children to women, manager to have a measure of humility and the which has limited the role of the father in a willingness to revise previous assessments and child’s life (Pierson, Laurendeau, & Chamberland, engage in conversations with the wider family 2001). These views have contributed to a narrow prior to the conference. definition of “family” for child welfare staff. When implementing the plan, collaborating Workers and managers are keenly aware of with the wider family circle seems to flow more the requirement that clients consent to their easily for the worker and manager than it did file information being shared with anyone before the conference occurred. This may be else, including other family members. They due to the family circle and the child welfare are also aware of the time required to develop staff being committed to working together to relationships with members of the wider family implement the plan, as well as the impact of the system. family group conferencing experience on the worker and manager. The narrow focus on mother and child, the requirement for consents, and time constraints After experiencing a family group conference, have tended to result in minimal engagement with participants identified how they are applying the wider family system, especially the paternal the principle of widening the circle in their case family system, in traditional child welfare management practices in general. Applications practice. Participants identified the importance include being more open to learning about the

Page 29 Volume 23 / Number 4 American Humane

relationships within a family, being more aware of Family group conferencing engages the whole who the family’s supports are, and having greater family system and may bring family conflicts skill in asking questions about a family’s support and dynamics into the view of the child welfare system. worker and manager. This helps the worker and manager have a realistic view of what support It is very encouraging that participants talked various family members are able to offer and about being able to transfer the experience may challenge previously held opinions. This of a family group conference circle into their also requires the worker and manager to manage everyday practice in this way, since many times the conflicts that may arise within the family the informal supports of client families tend to and support the family before and after the be invisible or discounted in traditional child conference. welfare practice. This is also an important step in moving toward strengths-based and collaborative Participants stressed the importance of practice in the child welfare field. remaining neutral, or not getting pulled into the family dynamic and not Awareness of family taking attacks personally. dynamics They stated that they need to remain neutral when “The number of people Child welfare service family members try to get the involved may escalate providers work workers’ opinion about “mini conflict within the family. with many of our plans” before the conference The family dynamic and the and not get pulled into anxious phone calls from community’s most discussions when one family family members are just part vulnerable members member tries to discredit of the process.” other family members. They Child welfare service also talked about being providers work with many of careful to not feel personally our community’s most vulnerable members. attacked during conflicts between various family Conflict or abusive or neglectful behavior members. This seems to be an important skill between family members, or generational family when engaging with a wider family system and difficulties are often found in their client families. one that requires the worker and manager to pay When working with a mother and child, the careful attention to boundaries. worker may not see the need to explore the wider Social workers are trained to help, and this family dynamic or may discount someone in the includes helping people resolve conflicts. It family as a source of support based on what the requires considerable skill for a social worker to client says about that person. hear all sides of the story in a conflict without When engaging in collaborative practice, the appearing to favor one particular person or child welfare service provider needs to balance version of events. Focus group participants building a therapeutic relationship with the client identified this as a challenge particularly family with engaging extended family members during the preparation phase of family group in planning processes. The balance becomes conferencing, when family members’ anxiety may challenging for both family members and the be heightened. child welfare service provider when there are conflicts between family members involved in the planning process.

Page 30 Volume 23 / Number 4 Protecting Children

Awareness of power imbalances Participants talked about the power differential between Children’s Aid Society staff and family “When I am involved in court, I feel like members and stressed the importance of personal a detective, gathering evidence and I feel awareness and acknowledging this differential. somewhat removed from the family. When I Family group conferencing was identified as an am involved in FGC, I feel like a social worker, anti-oppressive practice and a place where the working with the family to get them to the family understands the concerns of the Children’s decision. I am working with them and not Aid Society. They also talked about how a family looking for evidence. It is more relaxed.” receives a different message through family group conferencing, even if there is no solution, because “There is a sense of relief, that you are not the the family developed a positive plan that was their expert on the family. Pass the decisions to the choice. family. This feels more natural.” This awareness seemed particularly powerful “There is a knack to engage families in FGC. to the focus group participants. There is almost The worker starts off with a power differential a sense of relief that the child welfare service and needs to acknowledge this. The worker providers are not solely responsible for keeping a needs to step down and let the family take child safe. responsibility to make decisions. The family comes together to look after their own In child welfare practice, the child welfare children.” service provider holds the mandated authority and uses it when necessary to protect a child. “FGC is a whole new way to see family. The The risk for the child welfare interactions with family service provider is that over members are more equal time, he or she becomes afterwards.” There is almost a sense less sensitive to the power of relief that the child “FGC gives a model to use differential and the impact in a smaller way when welfare service providers that this power differential working with families. are not solely responsible may have on client families Calling a family meeting, for keeping a child safe (Frensch et al., 2005). Family for example, and making group conferencing may be sure to ask the family what a way of reminding child they want, how they can welfare service providers to solve the problem. It means pay attention to this power letting go of power as it is defined as control.” differential.

Connolly and McKenzie (1999) state: Participants spoke about a heightened sense of the power imbalance and an awareness of how to A sure way of undermining effective address this in their everyday work with families. participatory practice is to neglect the They talked about having a greater awareness of significance of power dynamics within the impact that the Children’s Aid Society has on and across systems….Using professional a family, and of the importance of starting from a knowledge and expertise to further the perspective of “what can I do for you,” rather than aims of participatory practice becomes the from an authoritative stance. challenge for workers as they avoid the many opportunities to take the problem-solving This is perhaps one of the most hopeful lead. (p. 83) responses from the participants in terms of transforming child welfare practice. The

Page 31 Volume 23 / Number 4 American Humane

awareness of the power differential and the Participants stressed the importance of impact on families is essential when working thinking about family group conferencing early collaboratively with family members. The in a family’s involvement with the Children’s participants hint at moving away from viewing Aid Society, which might make the decisions themselves as the “experts,” which is necessary look quite different. Participants also talked in order to move toward a family-led decision- about considering family group conferencing for making paradigm. decisions other than where the child could be while not in the care of a parent. Timing The timing of a referral to family group “After you have done one and it was a positive conference is an important consideration. experience, it is always in the back of your head Nixon et al. (2005) reported on the findings of for other families.” an international survey regarding family group conferencing: “while the agency may set criteria “ philosophy is tangled up with FGC, for referral, either prescriptive or permissive, the often because we waited too long for FGC.” judgment of whether a family is well-suited for a “Through FGC you learn about family members family meeting rests to a large extent with social you didn’t know existed. Maybe there would be workers” (p. 24-25). This trend is continued with a different outcome or better outcomes for kids? Ontario’s legislative changes, which require the The decisions look different if they are made Children’s Aid Society to consider a referral to an earlier on.” alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Just what “consider” means has not yet been fully Participants talked about offering family determined. group conferencing to families earlier in their involvement with the Children’s Aid Society, Ontario’s child welfare policy and legislation not always using family group conferencing do not specify when a referral to an alternative as an alternative to court, and using family dispute resolution must be considered, and so this group conferencing as a tool for permanency for is left to the individual agencies to determine as children. Participants also stressed that review they implement alternative dispute resolution. conferences are part of the process, and that the This will probably result in uneven referral rates family group conferencing process is shorter than to family group conferencing across the province, the court process even when there are review even though all Children’s Aid Societies are conferences. operating under the same legislation.

In child welfare work, workers and managers Occasionally, a family group conference has have many standards and legal obligations to been held at the Brant CAS after the court has meet, which often include timelines. The sense made an order allowing a child to be placed of timing for the child welfare service provider for adoption. This puts the family in a difficult and the sense of timing for the family may not situation, since their choices about how to achieve necessarily be congruent. The skill for the child permanency for their child have already been welfare service provider is to be prepared to offer somewhat limited by a court order. This also family group conferencing many times, and let puts the Children’s Aid Society staff in a difficult the family decide if or when the time is right. This position, due to their responsibilities toward a also ties into trusting the process and being aware child who is legally free to be adopted and the of family dynamics. stringent requirements of an adoption home study, even if the person offering to adopt the child is kin.

Page 32 Volume 23 / Number 4 Protecting Children

It is encouraging that participants are welfare service provider needs to identify the considering this question and recognize that underlying difficulty in a family that leads to the things might look quite different for a child and assessment that a child is at risk of harm, so that family if family group conferencing is offered the family circle can create the plan. This has not earlier. The question of timing ties into who holds formed part of the usual practice, and it takes the power to offer family group conferencing, some skill to learn to articulate the bottom lines determine the timing, or decide whether or not a in strengths-based language. referral is “appropriate.” It is very encouraging that participants Articulating bottom lines identified how helpful it is to identify these bottom lines, how surprised they are at how “We are trained to identify risk indicators and difficult it is, and that they are expanding this define things. Bottom lines are often unknown.” practice with other families they are serving.

Participants discussed how difficult it is to Does Family Group Conferencing Transform identify the bottom lines for a family group Child Welfare Practices? conference. They talked about how helpful it was to develop these bottom lines through the family It appears that, based on the participants’ group conferencing process since this gave them responses, family group conferencing is helping more clarity about their work with a client family. transform child welfare practices at the Brant They also talked about using the concept of CAS toward more collaborative case management bottom lines in their work with other families. practices. As a result of their experience with family group conferencing, the focus group Child welfare work is often crisis-driven. As a participants seem to be: result, workers and managers spend considerable time responding to the crises, leaving less time • Affirming their philosophy and values about to consider how to address the underlying family-led decision making processes. challenges facing a family. • Changing their understanding about their Social workers’ clinical training tends to focus client families in general. on teaching them to assess and plan. Child welfare service providers have been trained • Maintaining a realistic sense of the strengths to assess risk of harm to a child and to build in individual families and knowing how to service plans that mitigate the risk. This results seek out the client family’s informal supports. in a service plan that often includes things the • Increasing awareness of the power client has to do, without actually identifying the differential between them and their client underlying difficulty which has led to the risk of families and beginning to move away from harm to a child. The focus of the worker’s and the “expert” role in the relationship with a family’s work together then usually becomes client family. whether or not the client has done the things expected in the service plan. This is also what • Asking questions about the timing of family usually happens when there is court involvement group conferencing referrals. and a client is expected to follow the court- ordered plan of care. • Starting to expand the concept of articulating the Children’s Aid Society bottom lines to Family group conferencing is a way for the their work with other families. extended family circle to create their own plan to keep their child safe. This means that the child

Page 33 Volume 23 / Number 4 American Humane

Participants highlighted some important System Challenges system supports and challenges as they moved toward more collaborative case management “CAS [Children’s Aid Society] still has the legal practices. mandate — how to bridge the requirements of the mandate and the family-driven process?” System Supports “CAS still has to be the boss, such as ‘I have “With differential response, we are starting to see you every 30 days’ and this may be in early to identify supports and link families conflict with the family-driven plan.” to people. Drawing in support people is part of Given the context of the the planning all along with A community-based requirements of the agency’s differential response.” usual practices, legislation, child protection setting legal regulations, and Ministry Participants identified and the implementation standards that still need to be how system supports make of differential response met, participants identified family group conferencing some of the challenges and collaborative case were seen as two associated with implementing management practices easier important system the family group conferencing to implement. A community- supports plan and in working in based child protection setting partnership with family and the implementation of members rather than going differential response were back to doing business the old seen as two important system way. supports. They stressed that before the Children’s Child welfare service providers work within a Aid Society staff members can explain to specific legal and policy framework. The Brant family members the reasons for the agency’s CAS has experienced family group conferencing requirements, they must reconcile them in their both prior to the Ontario transformation agenda own minds. Participants also talked about the and after the legislative and policy changes time it takes to engage a family in the alternative came into effect. The Brant CAS already had dispute resolution process, and that other community-based child protection services caseload demands sometimes make it difficult to before the policy and legislative changes, which have the time to spend with family members in may have supported the growth of family group this way. They also pointed out that sometimes conferencing when it was first introduced. other service providers in the community find it hard to wait for the family group conferencing Participants pointed to the importance of process and wonder why the Children’s Aid the policy changes, specifically differential Society does not use their mandated authority to response, as supporting collaborative practice, move more quickly. with family group conferencing being one form of collaborative practice. It is encouraging that These system challenges formed an area of participants see that family group conferencing some frustration for the focus group participants, fits into a broader collaborative practice and in some ways confirm Connolly and framework. It is also encouraging that there are McKenzie’s (1999) observation about the conflict some legislative and policy changes at the Ontario between a worker’s core values and a worker’s provincial level, as well as at the Brant CAS level, prior training. which support this collaborative practice.

Page 34 Volume 23 / Number 4 Protecting Children

There appears to be a fundamental conflict Keeping in mind the importance of policy, between engaging in a family-driven process legislation, and agency practice, an individual and the requirements of a child welfare system worker or manager’s philosophy and values seem which tends to view itself as the expert on risk to be the foundation of helping him or her practice reduction with a focus on accountability and use in a collaborative way. This brings some questions of mandated authority. to the forefront, including:

Merkel-Holguin et al. (2003) discuss the • How does the experience of family group challenges associated with integrating family conferencing affect the child welfare group conferencing into mainstream practice. service providers’ philosophy and values Family group conferencing challenges the underpinning their practice? assumptions and “decision making approaches that place power and sanction in the control of • What has supported their collaborative service providers” (p. 5). Merkel-Holguin and practice philosophy and values in the child Wilmot (2005) further articulate this challenge: welfare field? “Who decides what process a family is offered?” • How can others be encouraged to practice (p. 195) and “Does the promulgation of a in this way, knowing the importance of continuum of family involvement models give philosophy and values? permission to social workers and the system to remain within their comfort zones instead • What will help a child welfare service of moving toward better engagement and provider move toward the philosophy and partnership efforts with families?” (p. 195). values underpinning collaborative case management practices? Nixon et al. (2005) identified several key blocks to sustaining family group conferencing • What can we learn from those who are or moving family group conferencing into less enthusiastic about family group mainstream practice: program drift, agency conferencing? constraint, budget constraint, lack of resources, and lack of feedback and awareness. Each of • What case management practices these has the potential to keep family group support family group conference plan conferencing marginalized and under-used. implementation?

While individual workers and managers are Another area for further attention are the finding creative ways to reconcile family-led requirements, usually legislated or based on decision making into the current child welfare Ministry standards, that may hinder collaborative system, this will remain an exercise in frustration practice through family group conferencing. and futility unless the child welfare system itself Participants spoke about these being a challenge embraces family-led decision-making processes mostly during the implementation phase of the and makes the necessary systemic changes to family group conference plan. Some questions to support this. ponder include:

Where to Go From Here? • How will the challenges to collaborative practice be identified both at an agency and While it appears that family group conferencing Ministry level? is helping transform child welfare case management practices at the Brant CAS, there • What changes can be made to further support are some important questions about how this collaborative practice? happens.

Page 35 Volume 23 / Number 4 American Humane

Exploring these questions may further assist child welfare service providers, the legislation the child welfare field to implement family group and policy, local agency policy and practice, and conferencing and collaborative case management individual worker and manager practices all need practices in general. to support family-led decision-making processes.

Conclusion References

It appears that family group conferencing Cameron, G. (2003). Promoting positive child is helping transform the case management and family welfare. In K. Kufeldt & B. McKenzie (Eds.), Connecting research, policy, and practice practices of child welfare service providers at the (pp. 79-100). Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Wilfrid Brant CAS toward a more collaborative practice Laurier Press. model. These case management practices that The Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. support family group conferencing seem to be ch. C.11. (1990). Retrieved June 4, 2008, multi-faceted and nested within broader policy, from http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/ en/isysquery/4dfc0dd8-52ad-45d9-ae76- legislative, and agency contexts. 757140a2ab8b/12/frame/?search=browseStatutes &context= The experience of participating in a family Child Welfare Secretariat: Policy Development group conference seems somehow to be and Program Design Division (2005). Family foundational in supporting collaborative centred child welfare practice: Practice concepts case management practices. Encouraging & family centred conferences. Unpublished and supporting the philosophy and values manuscript. underpinning collaborative practice also seem Children’s Aid Society of Brant. (2004). to be important, although it is not clear how the Community-based child welfare at the Children’s Aid Society of Brant. Unpublished manuscript. experience of family group conferencing affects Connolly, M., & McKenzie, M. (1999). Effective child welfare service providers’ philosophy and participatory practice: Family group conferencing values. in child protection. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Dumbrill, G. (2005). Executive summary. Some collaborative case management practices In G. Dumbrill (Ed.), Child welfare in Ontario: have been identified, and the next step may be Developing a collaborative intervention model (pp. to find ways to support these practices. This may 6-15). Toronto, Canada: Ontario Association of include the broader systemic supports of policy, Children’s Aid Societies. legislation, and agency practice as well as staff Frensch, K., Cameron, G., & Hazineh, L. (2005). members’ philosophy and values. It also appears The Children’s Aid Society of Brant: A community- based model of child welfare service delivery. important to address broader systemic challenges Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier to collaborative practice. University. Helland, J. (2005). Family group conferencing Hopefully, this beginning exploration will literature review. Victoria, Canada: Child and help further refine some important questions Youth Officer for British Columbia. about building collaborative case management Merkel-Holguin, L., Nixon, P., & Burford, G. practices in the child welfare field. (2003). Learning with families: A synopsis of FGDM research and evaluation in child welfare. In summary, it appears that family group Protecting Children, 18(1 & 2), 2-11. conferencing holds enormous potential to Merkel-Holguin, L., & Wilmot, L. (2005). transform child welfare practice from viewing Analyzing family involvement approaches. In the service provider as “expert” to a collaborative J. Pennell & G. Anderson (Eds.), Widening the circle: The practice and evaluation of family group practice with families receiving child welfare conferencing with children, youths, and their services. For family group conferencing to move families (pp. 183-201). Washington, DC: NASW into mainstream practice and thus have greater Press. influence over case management practices of Page 36 Volume 23 / Number 4 Protecting Children

Nixon, P., Burford, G., & Quinn, A. (with Prilleltensky, I., Pierson, L., & Nelson, G. Edelbaum, J.). (2005, May). A survey of (2001). Mapping the terrain: Framework for international practices, policy & research on promoting family wellness and preventing child family group conferencing and related practices. maltreatment. In I. Prilleltensky, L. Pierson, & Englewood, CO: American Humane Association. G. Nelson (Eds.), Promoting family wellness and Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies. preventing child maltreatments: Fundamentals for (2007). Plan for change in child welfare key thinking and action (pp 1-40). Toronto, Ontario, messages. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Author. Canada: University of Toronto Press. Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth Schmid, J., & Goranson, S. (2003). An evaluation Services. (2005). Child welfare transformation of family group conferencing in Toronto. 2005: A strategic plan for a flexible, sustainable and Protecting Children, 18(1 & 2), 110-112. outcome oriented service delivery model. Toronto, Sherry, M. (2007). Family group decision Ontario, Canada: Author. making: Annual report April 1, 2006-March 31, Pennell, J. (2003). Are we following key FGC 2007. (Available from the Children’s Aid Society of practices? Views of conference participants. Brant, PO Box 774, Brantford ON N3T 5R7 CA). Protecting Children, 18(1 & 2), 16-21. Stevens, M. (2003). Reconstruction works? Pierson, L., Laurendeau, M-C., & Chamberland, Constructing family perspectives of the outcomes C. (2001). Context, contributing factors, and of family group conferences. Protecting Children, consequences. In I. Prilleltensky, L. Pierson, & 18(1 & 2), 30-41. G. Nelson (Eds.), Promoting family wellness and Wharf, B. (2002). Building a case for community preventing child maltreatments: Fundamentals for approaches to child welfare. In B. Wharf (Ed.), thinking and action (pp. 41-123). Toronto, Ontario, Community work approaches to child welfare Canada: University of Toronto Press. (pp. 181-198). Peterborough, Ontario, Canada: Prilleltensky, I., Laurendeau, M-C., Broadview Press. Chamberland, C., & Pierson, L. (2001). Vision and values for child and family wellness. In I. Prilleltensky, L. Pierson, & G. Nelson (Eds.), Promoting family wellness and preventing child maltreatments: Fundamentals for thinking and action (pp. 124-176). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Page 37 Volume 23 / Number 4