Home  «  Program  «  Family Group Decision Making  « 

Family Group Decision Making (FGDM)

Scientific Rating:
3
Promising Research Evidence
See scale of 1-5
Child Welfare Relevance Level:
High

See descriptions of 3 levels

Brief Description

The information in this program outline is provided by the program representative and edited by the CEBC staff. The Family Group Decision Making (FGDM) program has been rated by the CEBC in the areas of: Child Welfare Initiatives and Family Stabilization.

  • Types of Maltreatment: Does not target any specific kind of maltreatment
  • Target Population: Children who are abused/neglected and their family groups.

FDGM is an innovative approach that positions the “family group” as leaders in decision making about their children’s safety, permanency, and well-being. Children and their parents are nested in a broader family group: those people to whom they are connected through kinship and other relationships. Agency decision-making practices that are planned and dominated by professionals and focused narrowly on children and parents can deprive those children and parents of the support and assistance of their family group — and can deprive agencies of key partners in the child welfare process. FGDM recognizes the importance of involving family groups in decision making about children who need protection or care, and it can be initiated by child welfare agencies whenever a critical decision about a child is required. In FGDM processes, a trained coordinator who is independent of the case brings together the family group and the agency personnel to create and carry out a plan to safeguard children and other family members. FGDM processes position the family group to lead decision making, and the statutory authorities agree to support family group plans that adequately address agency concerns. The statutory authorities also organize service providers from governmental and non-governmental agencies to access resources for implementing the plans. FGDM processes are not conflict-resolution approaches, therapeutic interventions or forums for ratifying professionally crafted decisions. Rather, FGDM processes actively seek the collaboration and leadership of family groups in crafting and implementing plans that support the safety, permanency and well-being of their children.

Essential Components

  • 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.

Child Component

Family Group Decision Making (FGDM) was designed with a child component that addresses the following presenting problems and symptoms:

  • Parents are in danger of losing custody of child.

Age range: 0 – 17

Developmental Delays:

This program was not developed for children with developmental delays, and has not been tested for children with developmental delays.

Parent / Caregiver Component

Family Group Decision Making (FGDM) was designed with a parent/caregiver component that addresses the following presenting problems and symptoms:

  • Child endangerment present in the family.

Group Format

Family Group Decision Making (FGDM) was not designed to be conducted in a group setting, and has not been tested for use in a group setting.

Delivery Settings

This program is typically conducted in a(n):

  • Birth Family Home
  • Community Agency
  • Community Daily Living Settings
  • Religious Organization
  • School

Homework

This program does not include a homework component.

Languages

Family Group Decision Making (FGDM) does not have materials available in a language other than English.

Resources Needed to Run Program

The typical resources for implementing the program are:

  • Personnel
  • Flexible funds to support family decisions
  • Meeting space (but this is usually donated)
  • Funds to support family attendance
  • Hosting/food for meetings
  • Resources and services to support the plans generated at family meetings

Please see www.fgdm.org for more information.

Minimum Provider Qualifications

This has not been established and there are differing schools of thought worldwide on the qualifications for the Coordinators. For example, some US communities suggest that an MSW should fulfill the role of the Coordinator while, some US communities and countries outside of the US, may use volunteers or individuals with no, lesser, or different educational degrees. There is agreement that the Coordinators require sufficient training, supervision, coaching, and mentoring, and that this training should address core skill development. In addition, training on domestic violence and the program is increasingly being suggested as a necessary component for Coordinators. Please see www.fgdm.org for more information.

Education and Training Resources

There is a manual that describes how to implement this program, and there is training available for this program.

Training Contact:
Training is obtained:

On-site and some regionally based.

Number of days/hours:

Varies.

Relevant Published, Peer-Reviewed Research

This program 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 study) establishing the practice's benefit over the placebo, or found it to be comparable to or better than an appropriate comparison practice. Please see the Scientific Rating Scale for more information.

Child Welfare Outcomes: Safety, Permanency and Child/Family Well-Being

Show relevant research...

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)
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — 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: Pretest/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.
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — 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: Post-test only
Number of Participants: 189

Population:

  • Age range — Not Specified
  • Race/Ethnicity — Not Specified
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — 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 — Not Specified
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — 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 Specified
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — 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.

References

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.

Contact Information

Name: Lisa Merkel-Holguin
Agency/Affiliation: American Humane Association
Website: www.fgdm.org
Email:
Phone: (303) 925-9421
Fax: (303) 862-3712

Date Reviewed: June 2011 (originally reviewed in May 2009)