Camden FGC Service

1
Camden FGC Service

• Evaluation 2007

Using FGCs to improve childrens outcomes
2
Context of the service - 1

• Camden is an inner London borough
• 27 of Camden's population is Black or Ethnic
  Minority
• FGC referrals in Camden broadly reflect its
  cultural make up - in the order of representation
  of largest communities with a distinct cultural
  identity (Bangladeshi, Black African, Irish,
  Indian, Black Caribbean and Chinese).
• Referrals to the service started in 2000 and
  totalled approximately 9, 2 of which were not
  held.
• In 2007/8, the service received 161 referrals and
  held 93 initial and 37 review fgcs for a total of
  130 fgcs held.

3
Context of the service - 2

• Own pool of 13 self-employed independent
  co-ordinators
• 11 ethnicities separating White UK from White
  Irish and White Scottish and 10 languages
  represented in the group. We were able to provide
  a full match in culture in 91 out of 160
  referrals and a partial match in 50 of those in
  2007/8.
• There is a welfare service as well as a
  restorative justice FGC service where a young
  persons behaviour is causing problems to others
  and where they also have needs
• and school-based fgcs where a young person is at
  risk of exclusion

4
Context of the service 3

• Referrals to service are mainly child welfare.
• Trigger points for referral
• a plan needs to be made about the future of a
  child in need
• a childs name is placed on the child protection
  register and a protection plan is needed
• accommodation is requested or discussed
• a decision is made to commence care proceedings
• a decision is made that a plan for a childs
  permanence (long-term future) needs to be made
• a child is looked after and aspects of the care
  plan need deciding

5
Research brief

• What were the short-term and long-term outcomes
  for those children who have been the subject of
  an FGC and what might have been the outcome
  without it?
• Using the plans produced by families, can the
  outcomes for children be mapped against the ECM
  outcomes?
• Can the FGC outcomes be compared with those of
  other interventions (e.g. cp conference, care
  proceedings, family work)
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the
  existing service and how might practice be
  improved?

6
Evaluation was in two parts..

• Research was carried out by Kate Morris,
  University of Birmingham.
• The referrals and plans from all the FGCs held
  from 2001 to (September) 2006 were analysed and
  the planned outcomes put into categories (total
  plans 116).
• A retrospective examination of what had happened
  to children involved in 47 FGCs held in 2004/5.
  Contact was made with families and with social
  workers. These interviews conducted by
  independent co-ordinators varied from 18 months
  post FGC to 6 months post FGC average after FGC
  12 months.
• There were 36 instances of both family and social
  worker being interviewed, plus 8 social work only
  interviews and 3 family only interviews.

7
Themes identified.

• Effect on outcomes of care proceedings (high
  number of children on interim or full care order
  at referral very low number of children on
  orders post FGC) and reduction in number of care
  proceedings.
• Heavy involvement of extended family in the
  plans. In over 90 of plans the extended family
  made significant commitments re ensuring the care
  the child/ren. .the value of the service in
  enabling children to live within their kinship
  networks (from report).
• Families demonstrating a strong ethic of care
  ..even when the child not with them.

8
Analysis of plans - 1

• Planned outcome at end of FGC all children
• all years 2001-2006
• Family support arrangement to prevent breakdown
  35
• Involvement of kinship network to support home
  care 35
• Arrangements for safe care within family
  network 39
• Informal kinship care 32
• Formal kinship care 25
• Accommodation 6
• Formal care arrangements (ICO/CO/Permanency)
  4
• Restricted access to resources 10
• Arrangements to support familys capacity to
  offer
• nurturing to child 44
• Contact arrangements 29

9
Analysis of plans - 2
A Family support arrangement to prevent
breakdown B Involvement of kin network to
support home care C Arrangements for safe care
within family network D Informal kinship care E
Formal kinship care F Accommodation G Formal
care arrangement H Restricted access to
resources I Arrangements to support familys
capacity to nurture child J Contact arrangements
10
Can ECM outcomes capture FGC outcomes? - 1
11
Can ECM outcomes capture FGC outcomes? - 2

• Comments.
• Family plans often go beyond ECM outcomes..
• e.g. may focus on adult needs to enable
  childrens needs to be met
• ECM outcomes can dislocate children from family
  networks emphasis is on child outcomes which
  ignore family connections which are important
  for children

D to have access to the family home for
supervised visits with the children providing she
is not under the influence of drink or drugsif
for what ever reason the supervised visits in the
home do not work out the family will inform
social services so that arrangements can be made
elsewhere.
12
Longer term outcomes (in depth follow up of 47
FGCs) - 1
13
Longer Term Outcomes - 2
14
Longer Term Outcomes (in depth follow up of 47
FGCs) - 3
15
Longer term outcomes (in depth follow up of 47
FGCs) 4

• Predicted outcomes with an FGC
• Of 19 social work responses, 5 thought the FGC
  made no difference or made situation worse.
• Of 24 family member responses, 2 thought the FGC
  made no difference and 1 thought the FGC made the
  situation worse. 8 said they did not know.

16
Longer term outcomes (in depth follow up of 47
FGCs) 5

• Themes in responses about the effect of the FGC
• Difficult process but helpful
• Effective but needs commitment
• Enables families to better care for their
  children (including keeping children within
  family)
• Allows families to make the decisions rather than
  the professionals
• A minority of respondents saw the FGC as having
  had no impact or having made matters more
  difficult
• Helped ensure support
• Is felt to have been culturally appropriate and
  responsive.

17
Contact details

• Sophika Houck, Camden FGC Service manager
• Fgc.crowndale_at_camden.gov.uk
• 020 7974 2335
• Andrew Papworth, FGC Co-ordinator, Consultant and
  Trainer andrewpapworth_at_phonecoop.coop