Family Group Decision Making (FGDM) - Detailed Report

• An independent (i.e., non-case carrying) coordinator is responsible for convening the family group meeting with agency personnel.
• The child protection agency personnel recognize the family group as their key decision-making partner, and time and resources are available to convene this group.
• Family groups have the opportunity to meet on their own, without the statutory authorities and other non-family members present, to work through the information they have been given and to formulate their responses and plans.
• When agency concerns are adequately addressed, preference is given to a family group’s plan over any other possible plan.
• Referring agencies support family groups by providing the services and resources necessary to implement the agreed-upon plans.

Family Group Decision Making (FGDM) is rated a "3 – Promising Research Evidence" on the Scientific Rating Scale based on the published, peer-reviewed research available. The practice must have at least one study utilizing some form of control (e.g., untreated group, placebo group, matched wait list) establishing the practice's benefit over the placebo, or found it to be comparable to or better than an appropriate comparison practice. For more information on the rating of a “3 – Promising Research Evidence,” please see the Scientific Rating Scale.

Penell, J., & Burford, G. (2000). Family Group Decision Making: Protecting children and women. Child Welfare, 79(2), 131-158.

Type of Study: Pretest/posttest with non-equivalent comparison group
Number of participants: 91 children and their families
Population:

Age Range: 0-17
Race/Ethnicity: Inuit, European descent (percentages not given)
Status (e.g., foster care, CW): Children in foster care, group homes or custodial facility, or at imminent risk for removal.

Location/Institution: Eastern Canada
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) This study compared families in a Family Group Decision Making (FGDM) program with other families from Child Protective Services. Measures included a checklist with 31 indicators of child abuse and neglect and adult abuse, which was used to assess children’s case files. Comparisons were made on whether indicators were present at the year prior to the conference and 1 year after the conference for both FGDM families and comparison families during the same time period. Authors note that the FGDM families had higher numbers of problems in pre-test period, but were similar in other respects. Results showed that FGDM families had half the number of maltreatment events in the posttest relative to the pretest period, while comparison group events increased. The number of reports to and actions taken by CPS also fell for the FGDM group. Cases of mother/wife abuse also declined in FGDM group families and rose somewhat in the comparison group. Limitations of this study include lack of random assignment to conditions and lack of statistical analysis to verify the significance of observed group differences.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: 1 year.

Gunderson, K., Cahn, K., & Wirth, J. (2003). The Washington State long-term outcome study. Protecting Children, 18(1/2), 42-47.

Type of Study: Pre-test/Posttest
Number of participants: 138 children
Population:

Age Range: Unknown
Race/Ethnicity: 59% Caucasian, 23% Native American, 11% African American, 4% Hispanic and 3% Asian.
Status (e.g., foster care, CW): Referred by CWS, CPS or Tribal welfare workers

Location/Institution: Washington state
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) This study examined outcomes for families receiving family group conferences (FGC). Results after approximately six months showed that fewer children were living with non-relatives after the FGC and more children were living with their parents. Examination of the state database showed that 6.8% of the children were re-referred for alleged abuse and neglect in comparison with a statewide average of 8.1%. Placements also appeared to be stable with only 10.1% of children being placed in out-of-home care.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: 6 months after family group conference.

Litchfield, M. M., Gatowski, S.I ., & Dobbin, S. A. (2003). Improving outcomes for families: Results from Miami’s family decision making program. Protecting Children, 18(1-2), 48-51.

Type of Study: Posttest only
Number of participants: 189
Population:

Age Range: Unknown
Race/Ethnicity: Unknown
Status (e.g., foster care, CW): Families referred for family conferences by the court.

Location/Institution: Miami, FL
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) The study evaluated placement statistics for the sample of families, as well as family satisfaction with the conferencing process and services received. Results showed that 52% of children were returned home and 92% of children remained in a stable placement during the time studied. A large majority 99% of families found the conference process very helpful and 91% found the outcome to be satisfactory. A majority of families also reported that their concerns were better heard and that they had better understanding in relations with their counselor
Length of post-intervention follow-up: 6 months post conference

Sundell, K., & Vinnerljung, B. (2004). Outcomes family group conferencing in Sweden: A 3 year follow-up. Child Abuse and Neglect, 28, 267-287.

Type of Study: Pretest/Posttest with non-equivalent comparison group
Number of participants: Family group conferencing: 99 children, Comparison Group: 149 children
Population:

Age Range: Younger than 17 at the time of the first conference
Race/Ethnicity: Unknown
Status (e.g., foster care, CW): Families referred for Child Protective Services

Location/Institution: Sweden
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) Families referred for Family Group Conferencing (FGC) were compared to families receiving standard CPS procedures. At baseline groups were comparable on most demographics, but the FGC group was more likely to have had prior investigation by CPS and caseworkers rated FGC group children as having more severe problems. Data on services received was collected from case files and caseworkers also rated the severity of children’s problems at baseline and at case closure. As measured at closure, FGC group children received more services and were more likely to be living with extended family. At long-term follow-up there were significantly more overall substantiated maltreatment reports for the comparison group and more reports of physical and sexual abuse. However, the FGC group was more likely to have had a substantiated report of neglect. Groups did not differ with regard to referrals for children’s antisocial behavior problems. FGC group families received services for a longer period. FGC group children were more likely to be in out-of-home care at follow-up, but were also more likely to have been placed with extended family. Notable limitations of the study include some attrition and lack of random assignment to groups.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: 3 years.

Walker, L. (2005). A cohort study of ‘Ohana conferencing in child abuse and neglect cases. Protecting Children, 19(4), 36-46.

Type of Study: Non-matched comparison group
Number of participants: 60 families, 84 children.
Population:

Age Range: FGDM, 8.6; Comparison group, 8.3 years on average
Race/Ethnicity: Not given
Status (e.g., foster care, CW): Families involved with Child Protective Services (CPS) cases.

Location/Institution: Hawaii
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) Families were examined who either received ‘Ohana conferencing (FGDM) or services as usual. Outcomes assessed included time that the case was open, court appearances, number of prior reports, and temporary and permanent placements. The FGDM group had shorter case times and few court hearings. Children in the FGDM had few foster placements, emergency shelter placements and fewer court-ordered permanent custody placements. Groups did not differ on placement with relatives. Limitations include lack of randomization to conditions or matched comparison group. The authors not that while CPS cases overall were randomly selected for consideration, the FGDM group came disproportionately from one location and cases referred for conferencing tended to have fewer prior abuse and neglect reports.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: None

Burford, G., Pennell, J., & MacLeod, S. (1995, August). Manual for coordinators and communities: The organization and practice of Family Group Decision Making (revised). St. John's, NF: Memorial University of Newfoundland, School of Social Work.

Merkel-Holguin, L. (Ed.) (2003). Promising results, potential new directions: International FGDM research and evaluation in child welfare, special issue of Protecting Children, 18(1-2).

Weick, A., & Saleebey, D. (1995). Family Decision Making: A conferencing philosophy. New Zealand: Kinpower Associates.