A word today about facilitator neutrality: what it is, what it isn’t and why it’s essential to program success. Many programs assume that a counselor or social worker is (or should be) prepared to facilitate team meetings. We beg to differ. Our facilitation model is based on the work first developed by David Straus. Its emphasis is on facilitator neutrality and effective process design. One of the weaknesses (in my opinion) of many family conference and wraparound programs is their inclination to combine the role of the “Coordinator” with that of the “Facilitator”.

For example, check out this sample from the book “Theoretical Perspectives for Direct Social Work Practice: A Generalist-eclectic Approach” by Peter Lehmann and Nick Coady. They discuss the facilitation role (neutral convening of team meetings) in combination with the coordination role (working directly with children and families to assemble their teams and implement their plans).

What’s the problem with this? A few things.

To get underneath it, we have to have a clear understanding of the distinction between CONTENT and PROCESS. The CONTENT is the “stuff” the family is working on and the topics the team talks about. The PROCESS is the way in which the team does its talking. Content = WHAT. Process = HOW. Anyone who is even peripherially involved in the CONTENT of a case is not, in fact, neutral to that content for two reasons: 1. They’ve engaged in directly working with that content and, 2. They are likely to be perceived by one or more team members as having a stake or an opinion.

Neutral facilitators enable teams to think deeply and creatively about issues where there are differences of agenda and opinion. They are able to help team members listen to one another and pull the wisdom from all points of view. From this comes a plan that everyone trusts as fair and sustainable. When the facilitator gets into the content s/he is at great risk of having his/her facilitation seen as “rigged” by one or more team members. When the team process is perceived as “rigged” (whether or not the perception is accurate), its integrity is compromised. Decisions made in meetings of questionable integrity are not as strong and not as likely to be sustained.

If at all possible, we advocate for having the coordinator and facilitator be separate people — and that the facilitator be someone that has no other connection to the family or team members. Sometimes limited resources seem to leave no option but to hire one person to do both roles. There are some tips and tricks that can help mitigate the problems with this. Forthcoming is a small but mighty series of posts on the aspects of facilitation that can make or break your family conference and wraparound teams.