Family Group Conferencing with Children and Young People

Social pedagogy as relational attachment practice

“…Using the comparison of social work, much of its professional education promotes the use of self. This can appear contradictory, in that practitioners are then trained to reduce this aspect of their personal selves (for example, self-disclosure) and create strong boundaries when working with individuals (Reamer, 2013), a practice that often establishes barriers rather than boundaries in building relationships (Fox, 2018). Social pedagogues, however, are encouraged to use aspects of themselves, the professional, personal and private (3Ps) aspects of their lives in building rapport with their clients.…”

“…The goal is to nurture children to grow into having a secure positive attachment with caregivers and significant others in their lives (Ainsworth et al, 1978). The other three styles of attachment -insecure avoidant, insecure ambivalent, and disorganised -offer explanations of differing levels of the individual's inability to build trusting and healthy relationships with others (Fox, 2018).…”

Reimagining child welfare outcomes: Learning from Family Group Conferencing

“…This study did not find a statistically significant effect on the likelihood of a referral, re‐referral with substantiation, or placement in out of home care. As Fox () points out, these studies had difficulties using a quantifiable statistical approach to understanding FGC, for example a change in the factors affecting the research groups, sample sizes, activities undertaken, and definitions used in research changed over time. Qualitative research literature strongly indicates evidence of programme satisfaction by family members and efficacy of FGC programmes—there is little known about longer‐term outcomes for children and family members (Edwards & Parkinson, ; Munro et al, ).…”

“…Studies considering process have remained positive, although there have been mixed findings in relations to outcomes that is outcomes have been neutral, positive, or negative. The empirical data regarding FGC outcomes appears to be limited, somewhat dated, and is, at times, contradictory, which seem to be linked to the different methodological approaches of the studies undertaken (Frost et al, ; Fox, : see also Mitchell, ). Building knowledge regarding FGC practice and outcomes is challenging for many reasons, including those related to the conceptualisation of what outcomes may mean for different stakeholders and the difficulties with outcome attribution in complex contexts (Mayne, ; Patton, ).…”

‘Because I'm a kid …’: The struggle for recognition of children and young people involved in child and family social work

“…Children's involvement in decision-making, however, remains a controversial area in child welfare and protection-research suggests children often struggle to be recognized in social work practice (Husby et al, 2019;Morrison et al, 2019); and the experience of misrecognition and disrespect can have implications for the child's sense of self and his/her/their longer-term outcomes (Häkli et al, 2018;Houston, 2015a;Turney, 2012;Vieluf & Sauerwein, 2018;Warming, 2014). Given the tensions between the principles of participation and best interests of the child, the level of agency a child has in terms of expressing their views and feelings in a decision-making forum in relation to child welfare is 'critical' (Fox, 2018). It is this later point, that of the child's experience of expressing their views to social work, that is the focus of this paper.…”