New Report Highlights Australia’s Use of FGCs in Child Protection Cases

The impetus for documenting the use of FGCs in Australia was a 2005 conference that brought together conferencing practitioners from across the country. This meeting resulted in concerns about a lack of information on practice in Australia and that there was little impetus for further development.

In response, the Australian Centre for Child Protection undertook a study to map the use of FGCs throughout the country. The recently released paper Family group conferencing in Australia 15 years on compares the implementation, use, and legislative authority of FGCs in the various states and territories of Australia and contrasts practice with that in New Zealand. This analysis includes:

• extent to which FGCs are used
• existence of specific legislation
• timing and context of FGCs
• amount of decision-making authority granted to FGCs

While conferencing is used in a variety of settings, this study looks strictly at its use in child protection cases.

In identifying FGC programmes, the researchers concentrated on those that self-identified as FGC or contained certain characteristics such as: use of three stage format developed in New Zealand; inclusion of extended family and/or broader social networks; and focus on family empowerment for decision-making.

Research was carried out both through a literature review of available information on FGCs in Australia and New Zealand and interviews with FGC practitioners or managers in each of Australia's eight states and territories.

In terms of implementation, all the states and territories had implemented FGCs in some form with only  one exception (the Northern Territory). Two states, Western Australia and New South Wales, experimented with FGC pilot programmes in the 1990s ending in 2000. Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory, on the other hand, each implemented the FGCs in the 1990s and have ongoing programmes. Tasmania first created a programme in 2000 with Queensland following in 2006. 

While most of the states and territories have implemented FGCs, the extent to which they are used varied by jurisdiction. Of the five with current programmes, accurate data was not available for two (Victoria and Queensland). The Australian Capital Territory only reports 10-15 FGCs per year. Tasmania reported 180 from 2005-2006 with South Australia recording 420 for the same time period. This is a drastic difference from the estimated 3000 FGCs in child protection cases reported in New Zealand each year.

Legislative differences between states may account for some of this variation. In the three states using FGCs the most (South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania) all have specific legislation encouraging its use under certain circumstances such as prior to applying for a protection order. Victoria, on the other hand, has developed and sustained the use of FGCs without legislation.

The context surrounding the use of FGCs also reveals differences in practice and implementation. In Victoria, for example, FGCs are used at different points in a case such as developing a case plan for the family or decision-making that will significantly impact an Aboriginal child. South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory both use FGCs prior to petitioning for a care and protection order and may be used instead of seeking a court order. In Tasmania, on the other hand, it is used in conjunction with a court process. Queensland uses FGCs when it is determined that a child is in need of protection and on-going intervention.

The level of decision-making authority accorded the process in each of the jurisdictions also varies. In The Australian Capital Territory, all the participants in the conference -- nuclear and extended family, the child in question, and the child protection worker -- must agree to the plans arising from the meeting. Once a plan is developed and agreed upon, the Department of Human Services (Department) is required to implement the plan. This does not preclude the Department from seeking other orders if necessary, but the agreement arising out of the FGC has similar standing as court orders.

The general practice in Australia, however, is for FGC agreements to go to the Department or courts for final approval. This allows for modifications without input from the family or extended social networks- a practice that may actually mean disempowerment for the family. This is very different from the New Zealand model where FGCs are used when a child is identified as needing protection and the outcomes are required to be implemented unless there is a valid reason for not doing so.

With all the differences in implementation, Australian jurisdictions have also developed interesting programme approaches:

• The Family Engagement Model in Western Australia works with families through family support meeting that identify concerns and develop plans for addressing them in collaboration with the family. While not offering a formal conference, this process uses collaboration in each contact with the family, can take place much earlier in a case that most FGC programmes, and engages the family in ongoing decision-making.

• In Queensland, structured facilitation may be used in place of private family time. This is done when facilitators feel that private time might be harmful for the child present or create an atmosphere that is not inclusive of all voices. 

• In Victoria, the Department of Human Services has partnered with the Rumbalara Aboriginal Co-operative to have Aboriginal workers take on primary roles in coordinating the conferencing process for Aboriginal children and families. A 2003 programme evaluation showed positive results leading to the formalization of the role of the Aboriginal community in the Children, Youth, and Families Act 2005.

The report concludes by highlighting a variety of issues for FGC practice in Australia:

• In states where conferences are not mandated by legislation, case workers could play an active role in identifying cases in which a conference would be capable of contributing to a solution.
• In states where conferences are mandated by legislation, case workers could play an active role in considering whether a conference may be capable of contributing to a solution before a conference is required by legislation.
• It is important for case workers to engage with conferences as a genuine opportunity for families to make decisions. The ongoing support of case workers, and their departments, in following through on agreements is essential if conferences are to be successful and perceived as legitimate.
• It is important for case workers to consider ways in which the collaborative approach, which conferencing is based on, can be applied to working with clients at all stages of the child protection process.
• Policy-makers need to consider the role that conferences play within child protection systems. Their potential is undermined and they may even be experienced by families as disempowering if they don't provide a genuine chance for families to be involved in the decision-making process.
• Research that evaluates conferences too narrowly - focusing only on their immediate outcomes, such as subsequent reports - risks misunderstanding the primary function of conferencing, which is a collaborative means with which to make decisions. Understanding the relationship between building the capacity of families, the involvement of supportive communities, and long-term outcomes for children is more likely to contribute to our knowledge about the effectiveness of conferencing (page 17).
  

Read the full-report from the National Child Protection Clearing House.



April 2008