Family Group Conferencing in Norway: Development and Status.
Since the mid-1990’s, family group conferencing has become a part of the child welfare landscape in Norway. Associate Professor Liv Schjelderup and Assistant Professor Cecilie More of the University of Stavanger, Norway provide this overview of the development and use of this intervention.
Family group conferencing was first introduced to the child welfare sphere
of Norway at a Nordic child welfare congress in Trondheim in 1994, where a
presentation by Peter March from England aroused interest and
enthusiasm. The method was first tried with a small group of refugees
and immigrants in the Saupstad district of Trondheim. This initial
experiment included ten family group conferences and received a positive
evaluation.
The methodology of family group conferencing aroused considerable interest because it broke with traditional child welfare work and the psycho-dynamic traditions of social work. At the same time, it was linked with ideas and ideals concerned with client participation and empowerment thinking. This made family group conferencing interesting for politicians who could associate it with their own social policy ideals about the mobilisation of civil society. It could also be linked to central goals concerned with the efficiency, legality and legitimacy of child welfare. Both the right and left wings of Norwegian politics expressed increasing concerns during the 1990s about the costs of the state’s welfare services. Any work that could to a greater degree mobilise and involve the public in finding solutions was very welcome.
This socio-political situation triggered investment in a series of different methods within child welfare in Norway at the end of 1990s. Family group conferencing was one such method. This is one explanation of why Norwegian efforts in family group conferencing in child welfare have primarily had a top-down character. It has not emerged from the child welfare professional environment, but rather from the research environment and educational institutions with support from professional policy makers. In 1998, the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs granted funds for national projects to test family group conferencing in Norwegian child welfare. Each project took a small selection of local authorities from each area of the country.
One project targeted children of all ages, with the whole spectrum of child welfare problems. In addition, experience was to be gleaned in the use of family group conferencing with ethnic minority families. These included immigrant and refugee families and the Samic people, who represent Norway’s indigenous population. During the course of the project period, however, it proved difficult to access ethnic minority families as participants. Therefore these are only represented to a small extent in the selection.
The other national project targeted the “worst cases” in child welfare. These are cases so serious that they border on assumption of care by the authorities. During the project period there were objections from local authorities that the selection criteria were too narrow. Then the project was widened to allow use of the method in cases with a lower degree of seriousness.
Both projects were positively evaluated. However, none of these evaluations was sufficiently comprehensive. Quantitative evaluations were made with limited data. Nonetheless, a series of professional articles were published that presented the method, reflected experience and gave important qualitative knowledge about the use of family group conferencing in Norway.
A result of the projects was that the method was experienced positively by participants, both by child welfare workers and by families who took part. “Family group conferencing is the best advertisement for itself”, was how one child welfare leader expressed it in a project evaluation. After they had taken part in the planning and implementation of family group conferencing, parents, child welfare workers and coordinators were all positive about their experiences.
In contrast to this enthusiasm, there was little or no extension of the use of family group conferencing at child welfare after projects were ended. However, many of the authorities involved in the project expressed that they would like to take part in a national extension, and stated that they needed help with the further development of the knowledge and competence that they had acquired.
Researchers indicated several reasons as to why extension of the method at individual child welfare offices did not take place:
Some child welfare workers in the offices participating in the projects refused to try the method. Family group conferencing represented a totally different way of working. The method disrupted the power balance and the traditional expert role of child welfare. Many expressed the feeling that they felt a great deal of insecurity in relinquishing responsibility for what happened to the children, and taking the right decisions to assure the child’s welfare.
Also, some families who were offered the opportunity of using family group conferencing declined. Little is known about why parents did not wish to try this method. What is known is that many child welfare workers are not good at presenting the method, what it involves and the opportunities offered. Further, for many child welfare workers, their own ambivalence is a problem affecting the presentation.
In Norway there is a strong political will and positive attitude towards granting financial means for strengthening child welfare professionally. Various methods with network orientation and power perspectives have received attention in recent years. Those who initiated the first national family group conference projects were activists in getting a new national investment that could benefit more local authorities. There should be a more thoroughly thought out teaching plan to reach more child welfare workers.
Not least, a new initiative should be followed by a more extensive research programme that will assure access to representative quantitative data. A new and larger national test and evaluation programme of family group conferencing in child welfare was initiated in 2002-2006, financed by the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs. Fifty-four local authorities are involved in this. An educational programme will reach 400 child welfare workers. The project is being headed by NOVA – Norwegian Social Research, the institute for research into life-course changes and welfare. An interesting characteristic of family group conferencing in Norway is that it has gained a strong footing in social worker education. Since the first projects were introduced in Norway, specialist literature about the method has been a feature of teaching programmes. Teaching modules have been developed at both the bachelor and masters levels.
Throughout the various project periods, children’s inclusion and active participation in family group conferencing has been put forward as a particular strength of the method. In 2003 the law concerning child welfare services in Norway was revised. Children from the age of 7 years should be allowed to give their opinion and be consulted about matters that concern them. This is in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This change of legislation should reinforce family group conferencing as a method for practical child welfare work in Norway.
Since 2001 Norwegian researchers have been taking part in a Nordic research group that mainly focuses on the implementation of family group conferencing in the Nordic region. Since 2003 this group has focused on the participation of children in family group conferencing. There is a need for knowledge about the extent to which family group conferencing realises its ideal of representing a new child’s perspective. It will also provide comparative data that can expand the frames of reference of the method.
This article originally appeared in NOPUSnews No. 4 · December 2004. NOPUS is the Nordic training programme for the development of social services. The article is reprinted here by permission.
June 2005
The methodology of family group conferencing aroused considerable interest because it broke with traditional child welfare work and the psycho-dynamic traditions of social work. At the same time, it was linked with ideas and ideals concerned with client participation and empowerment thinking. This made family group conferencing interesting for politicians who could associate it with their own social policy ideals about the mobilisation of civil society. It could also be linked to central goals concerned with the efficiency, legality and legitimacy of child welfare. Both the right and left wings of Norwegian politics expressed increasing concerns during the 1990s about the costs of the state’s welfare services. Any work that could to a greater degree mobilise and involve the public in finding solutions was very welcome.
This socio-political situation triggered investment in a series of different methods within child welfare in Norway at the end of 1990s. Family group conferencing was one such method. This is one explanation of why Norwegian efforts in family group conferencing in child welfare have primarily had a top-down character. It has not emerged from the child welfare professional environment, but rather from the research environment and educational institutions with support from professional policy makers. In 1998, the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs granted funds for national projects to test family group conferencing in Norwegian child welfare. Each project took a small selection of local authorities from each area of the country.
One project targeted children of all ages, with the whole spectrum of child welfare problems. In addition, experience was to be gleaned in the use of family group conferencing with ethnic minority families. These included immigrant and refugee families and the Samic people, who represent Norway’s indigenous population. During the course of the project period, however, it proved difficult to access ethnic minority families as participants. Therefore these are only represented to a small extent in the selection.
The other national project targeted the “worst cases” in child welfare. These are cases so serious that they border on assumption of care by the authorities. During the project period there were objections from local authorities that the selection criteria were too narrow. Then the project was widened to allow use of the method in cases with a lower degree of seriousness.
Both projects were positively evaluated. However, none of these evaluations was sufficiently comprehensive. Quantitative evaluations were made with limited data. Nonetheless, a series of professional articles were published that presented the method, reflected experience and gave important qualitative knowledge about the use of family group conferencing in Norway.
A result of the projects was that the method was experienced positively by participants, both by child welfare workers and by families who took part. “Family group conferencing is the best advertisement for itself”, was how one child welfare leader expressed it in a project evaluation. After they had taken part in the planning and implementation of family group conferencing, parents, child welfare workers and coordinators were all positive about their experiences.
In contrast to this enthusiasm, there was little or no extension of the use of family group conferencing at child welfare after projects were ended. However, many of the authorities involved in the project expressed that they would like to take part in a national extension, and stated that they needed help with the further development of the knowledge and competence that they had acquired.
Researchers indicated several reasons as to why extension of the method at individual child welfare offices did not take place:
Some child welfare workers in the offices participating in the projects refused to try the method. Family group conferencing represented a totally different way of working. The method disrupted the power balance and the traditional expert role of child welfare. Many expressed the feeling that they felt a great deal of insecurity in relinquishing responsibility for what happened to the children, and taking the right decisions to assure the child’s welfare.
Also, some families who were offered the opportunity of using family group conferencing declined. Little is known about why parents did not wish to try this method. What is known is that many child welfare workers are not good at presenting the method, what it involves and the opportunities offered. Further, for many child welfare workers, their own ambivalence is a problem affecting the presentation.
In Norway there is a strong political will and positive attitude towards granting financial means for strengthening child welfare professionally. Various methods with network orientation and power perspectives have received attention in recent years. Those who initiated the first national family group conference projects were activists in getting a new national investment that could benefit more local authorities. There should be a more thoroughly thought out teaching plan to reach more child welfare workers.
Not least, a new initiative should be followed by a more extensive research programme that will assure access to representative quantitative data. A new and larger national test and evaluation programme of family group conferencing in child welfare was initiated in 2002-2006, financed by the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs. Fifty-four local authorities are involved in this. An educational programme will reach 400 child welfare workers. The project is being headed by NOVA – Norwegian Social Research, the institute for research into life-course changes and welfare. An interesting characteristic of family group conferencing in Norway is that it has gained a strong footing in social worker education. Since the first projects were introduced in Norway, specialist literature about the method has been a feature of teaching programmes. Teaching modules have been developed at both the bachelor and masters levels.
Throughout the various project periods, children’s inclusion and active participation in family group conferencing has been put forward as a particular strength of the method. In 2003 the law concerning child welfare services in Norway was revised. Children from the age of 7 years should be allowed to give their opinion and be consulted about matters that concern them. This is in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This change of legislation should reinforce family group conferencing as a method for practical child welfare work in Norway.
Since 2001 Norwegian researchers have been taking part in a Nordic research group that mainly focuses on the implementation of family group conferencing in the Nordic region. Since 2003 this group has focused on the participation of children in family group conferencing. There is a need for knowledge about the extent to which family group conferencing realises its ideal of representing a new child’s perspective. It will also provide comparative data that can expand the frames of reference of the method.
This article originally appeared in NOPUSnews No. 4 · December 2004. NOPUS is the Nordic training programme for the development of social services. The article is reprinted here by permission.
June 2005
