Family Group Decision Making-Child Welfare 2009 Berzin

Journal_JulyAug08:15097_CWLA_JulyAugust2008 3/9/09 10:00 AM Page 35
Does Family Group Decision

Making Affect Child Welfare
Outcomes? Findings from a
Randomized Control Study
Stephanie Cosner Berzin, Ed Cohen, Karen Thomas, and

William C. Dawson
This article describes the evaluation of two family group

decision-making programs (FGDM; Fresno n ! 60; Riverside
n ! 50) administered under the California Title IV-E Waiver
Demonstration Project. This is the only evaluation using
random assignment to examine FGDM. Overall, results did
not indicate more positive outcomes for children receiving
the intervention, but did indicate that children were not
worse than those receiving traditional services; outcomes
examined were related to child safety, placement stability,
and permanence.
Stephanie Cosner Berzin MSSW, PhD is Assistant Professor, Boston College, Chestnut
Hill, Massachusetts. Ed Cohen MSW, PhD is Assistant Professor, San Jose State Uni-
versity, School of Social Work, San Jose, California. Karen Thomas LCSW is Clinical So-
cial Worker, Center for the Vulnerable Child, Children’s Hospital and Research Center
at Oakland, Oakland, California. William C. Dawson MSW is Associate Specialist, Cen-
ter for Social Services Research, School of Social Welfare, University of California,
Berkeley, California.
0009–4021/2008/040835-54 $3.00 CWLA 35
36 CHILD WELFARE • VOL. 87, #4
I
n recent years, child welfare agencies have been under pressure
to serve children and families more effectively, and to decrease
entry into and length of out-of-home placements. Family group
decision making (FGDM) has been seen as a way to engage fami-
lies in an otherwise adversarial context. Although FGDM has been
part of innovative service delivery and been implemented in up to
25 states in the United States (Merkel-Holguin, 2000) and in other
countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Nor-
way, Israel, and South Africa (Marsh & Crow, 1998; Sieppert, Hud-
son, & Unrau, 2000), few studies have adequately tested its effec-
tiveness. Efforts to examine program effectiveness have relied
largely on anecdotal evidence, implementation and process find-
ings, and client satisfaction results. As this intervention is imple-
mented on a wider scale, the need for outcome study evaluations
becomes more critical. The California Title IV-E Waiver Demon-
stration Project provides the opportunity to evaluate FGDM using
random assignment of the intervention.
Family Group Decision Making

In general terms, FGDM is a child welfare decision-making
process in which efforts are made to bring together all parties with
an interest in the well-being of the child and his or her family. At
the FGDM meeting, the group works to discuss the concerns that
bring the child to the attention of protective services, the strengths
that exist in the family system, and the changes necessary to keep
the child safe. Legislated formally in New Zealand in 1989, family
group conferencing programs (one FGDM model) were enacted in
response to several child welfare concerns, including growing
numbers of children living in out-of-home care, the disproportion-
ate number of minority children entering foster care, and the in-
stability of foster care placements (Marsh & Crow, 1998; Sieppert
Address reprint requests to Stephanie C. Berzin, Boston College, 140 Commonwealth Av-
enue, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467. Phone 617/552-0197. E-mail berzin@bc.edu.
Berzin et al. 37
et al., 2000). Parallel to the rise of family group conferencing in

New Zealand, the family unity meeting model arose out of a case-
work audit conducted by the Oregon State Office for Children and
Families. Like family group conferencing, this model seeks to in-
clude extended family members in child welfare decisions (Graber,
Keys, & White, 1996). Variations on the family group conferencing
and family unity meeting models proliferate. Despite their differ-
ences, the majority of FGDM models share several basic tenets:
• collaboration between families and community and agency
supports in child welfare decision making and service pro-
vision (Ban, 1996; Graber et al., 1996; Hassall, 1996; Maluc-
cio & Daly, 2000; Pennell & Burford, 1994);
• respect for the family’s community and culture (Maluccio
& Daly, 2000; McDonald & Associates, 2000; Moore & Mc-
Donald, 2000; Pennell & Burford, 1994; Ryburn, 1993);
• children’s rights to a voice in decision making and to safety
(Doolan & Phillips, 2000; Hassall, 1996; Immarigeon, 1996;
Maluccio & Daly, 2000; Moore & McDonald, 2000; Pennell
& Burford, 1994);
• empowerment of families to formulate their own workable
family plans (Ban, 1996; Maluccio & Daly, 2000; McDonald
& Associates, 2000; Moore & McDonald, 2000; Ryburn,
1993); and
• mobilization of increased family support, including extended
family and community resources (Ban, 1996; Graber et al.,
1996; Maluccio & Daly, 2000; McDonald & Associates, 2000).
In addition to these philosophies and goals, the FGDM model
relies on a structure of four main components: (1) referral, (2) prepa-
ration and planning, (3) the FGDM meeting, and (4) follow-up
planning and events (Merkel-Holguin, 1996). In the referral stage,
the social worker assigned to investigate the initial report of child
abuse or neglect refers a family to a FGDM meeting coordinator,
who determines whether a FGDM meeting will be held. The
preparation and planning stage includes several premeeting ac-
tivities including (1) ensuring safety for the child or adolescent,
(2) inviting family members and other participants, (3) defining

and communicating participants’ roles, (4) managing unresolved
family conflicts, and (5) coordinating meeting logistics.
The FGDM meeting itself consists of an introduction, an infor-
mation-sharing phase, a plan-deliberation phase, and finalization
of a family plan (Merkel-Holguin, 1996). Family plans are formu-
lated in the family deliberation phase of the FGDM meeting, which
may involve a private family meeting or a joint meeting between
family members, agency professionals, and community members
(Graber et al., 1996; Merkel-Holguin, 1996). Family plans comprise
specific provisions for child safety, child physical and mental health,
material assistance, recreational activities, and other services, as
well as detailed plans regarding how and by whom each provision
will be completed (Pennell & Burford, 2000; Sieppert et al., 2000).
Family plans are presented to the full group for discussion and the
meeting concludes with the final approval of the plan (Pennell &
Burford, 2000; Sieppert et al., 2000).
During the follow-up phase, the plan is monitored to ensure
that the requested services are accessible and that all participants
honor agreements made toward ensuring the care and protection
of the child. Monitoring may include collateral contacts with pro-
fessionals and family members, as well as additional FGDM meet-
ings (Sieppert et al., 2000; Merkel-Holguin, 1996). Failure to com-
ply with the provisions set forth in the family plan may result in
referral to family court (Marsh & Crow, 1998; Merkel-Holguin,
1996; Ryburn, 1993).
Evaluating FGDM Effectiveness

Research on FGDM has mainly been limited to process evaluations
and studies of client satisfaction. The few outcome studies com-
pleted to date suggest that FGDM supports beneficial outcomes
for children and families, including reduced time spent in out-of-
home placement, increased placement stability, and improved child
safety (McDonald & Associates, 2000; Pennell & Burford, 1994;
Berzin et al. 39
Vesneski & Kemp, 2000). Pennell and Burford (2000) examined

FGDM conferences for 32 families in comparison to families with-
out FGDM and found treatment families had greater reductions in
incidences of abuse and neglect and in child protective services
(CPS) involvement during the study period. Vesneski and Kemp
reported that families who received family group conferences (n !
100) saw an increased use of kinship placements and placement
stability for their children (78% of children remained in current
placement), compared to the statewide averages for the same year.
The study had no comparison group, however, and selection crite-
ria for conferences was not discussed, so the conferencing sample
may not have adequately represented the rest of the state’s child
welfare population in terms of factors predictive of placement type
or placement stability. Though these studies provide some infor-
mation on FGDM’s effectiveness, the specific effects of FGDM on
safety and placement outcomes remain ambiguous due to the
studies’ small sample sizes and inadequate comparison groups.
Recent work by Sundell and Vinnerljung (2004) suggests that
children receiving family group conferences (one version of FGDM)
did not have better outcomes than a comparison group. This three-
year Swedish study compared 99 children whose families received
FGDM to a randomly chosen comparison group of 106 families re-
ferred to CPS during the same period in the same local area, but
not given FGDM. Research questions focused on safety (compari-
son of rates of referral, substantiation, and referral source), service
provision (proportion receiving services and length of service),
and out-of-home care (proportion of children in out-of-home care,
proportion in care at case closure, length of spells, and placement
type). While conferences were implemented correctly and families
reported high satisfaction, the results did not support the hypoth-
esis that FGDM would decrease CPS referrals and substantiations
nor did they support hypothesized effects of the model on reduc-
ing length of placement. In addition, the variance accounted for by
FGDM in other measures was very small. Researchers pointed out
that poor family follow-through in the treatment group and the role
of extended family involvement in the comparison group may been

partly responsible for reducing the observable differences between
the two groups. The lack of effects on outcomes may also be at-
tributed to systemic poor service delivery, for which FGDM would
have had too limited an influence.
The California Title IV-E Waiver Evaluation

California’s Title IV-E Waiver Evaluation represented an opportu-
nity to test the effects of FGDM on child welfare outcomes utiliz-
ing a random experimental design. Clients were randomly as-
signed to a treatment group who received the FGDM intervention
and a control group who did not. The two participating counties
used different FGDM models and targeted different populations,
which afforded the opportunity to examine the effectiveness of the
intervention in different contexts. Understanding the effectiveness
of FGDM with different populations is particularly important as
this intervention is implemented on a wider scale.
Methods
Study Setting and Participants
This study was conducted in Fresno and Riverside Counties as
part of the California Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstra-
tion Project. Under the demonstration project, the California De-
partment of Social Services (CDSS) and selected California coun-
ties were permitted to waive federal and state restrictions on the
use of federal foster care funds, allowing for flexible use of these
funds over a 5-year period to test FGDM and other approved in-
terventions. The specific requirements of the demonstration proj-
ect were that (1) no children and families are harmed as a result of
the waiver, (2) the demonstration project remain cost-neutral to the
federal Title IV-E program, and (3) the demonstration project be
evaluated. (California was required to implement an experimental
design with random assignment.)
Berzin et al. 41
Though both counties implemented FGDM as part of the

demonstration project, they targeted different populations. Fresno
County targeted children from birth to 18 years old who were as-
sessed as being at moderate to high risk for further maltreatment
as indicated by California’s structured decision-making family risk
assessment tool, and whose families were eligible for voluntary in-
home services. Additional criteria required a protective hold on at
least one child in the family and at least three support persons to
attend the conference. Riverside County’s program was aimed at
children ages 2 to 12 years who were placed in foster family or rel-
ative care and were at risk of placement moves or placement in a
higher level of care.
The study of child welfare outcomes was conducted as part of
an Impact Study, which accompanied process, fidelity, and cost
studies of FGDM (Thomas, Cohen, & Berrick, 2003). An individual
study child was randomly selected among children from a sibling
group and is the basis for analysis. Assignments were made to the
treatment and comparison groups in a ratio of five to three, that is,
five assignments to the treatment group for every three assign-
ments to the comparison group. Although FGDM is an interven-
tion aimed at families, this report focuses on those individual
child-level outcomes that have been prioritized as performance in-
dicators of child welfare services.
The study sample, enrolled between April 2000 and December
2002, consists of 60 study children in Fresno (treatment group n !
39; comparison group n ! 21) and 50 study children in Riverside
(treatment group n ! 31; comparison group n ! 19). Select demo-
graphics can be seen in Table 1. There were no significant differ-
ences in demographic characteristics or child welfare history be-
tween the treatment and comparison groups.
Intervention
Fresno and Riverside Counties implemented FGDM to experimen-
tal families using the philosophies and goals consistent with previ-
ous literature (Ban, 1996; Doolan & Phillips, 2000; Graber et al.,
TABLE 1
Study Children Demographics
FRESNO (N ! 60)* RIVERSIDE (N ! 50)*
Gender Male 53.3% (n ! 32) 56.0% (n ! 28)
Female 46.7% (n ! 28) 44.0% (n ! 22)
Ethnicity Caucasian 23.3% (n ! 14) 46.0% (n ! 23)
African American 13.3% (n ! 8) 18.0% (n ! 9)
Hispanic 56.7% (n ! 34) 36.0% (n ! 18)
Other 6.7% (n ! 4) —
Mean Age at Enrollment 4.8 years (SD ! 4.1) 5.5 years (SD ! 3.3)
Placement at Enrollment Home 100% (n ! 60) —
Foster Family Home — 22.0% (n ! 11)
FFA — 2.0% (n ! 1)
Relative Home — 74.0% (n ! 37)
Guardian Home — 2.0% (n ! 1)
Reason for Child General Neglect 46.0% (n ! 23) 28.9% (n ! 15)
Welfare Involvement Caregiver Absence 30.0% (n ! 15) 44.2% (n ! 23)
or Incapacity
Physical Abuse 10.0% (n ! 5) 7.7% (n ! 4)
Severe Neglect 6.0% (n ! 3) 7.7% (n ! 4)
Sexual Abuse 6.0% (n ! 3) 3.9% (n ! 2)
Exploitation 2.0% (n ! 1) —
*Note: N sizes in the table reflect missing data.
1996; Hassall, 1996; Maluccio & Daly, 2000; McDonald & Associ-
ates, 2000; Merkel-Holguin, 1996; Pennell & Burford, 1994), but
their structural approaches were different. Fresno County utilized
a blended approach to FGDM, which blends the family unity and
family group conferencing models. Their approach incorporated a
formal strengths assessment phase and private family meeting time
during the conference. Fresno County’s intervention was designed
to last 6 months with only one conference. Riverside County used
the family unity model of FGDM, which includes a formal strengths
Berzin et al. 43
assessment phase at the conference and the development of the

family plan by all conference participants. Riverside County also
provided families with multiple conferences after their initial fam-
ily conference. Eligible families were provided with services until
the case was closed to the court and the agency.
Data Collection and Analysis
Administrative data for this study were extracted from the Cali-
fornia Children’s Services Archive. The archive is administered by
the Child Welfare Research Center (CWRC) at the University of
California at Berkeley. The primary data in the archive are from the
Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS),
the information system administered by the CDSS and used by
county child welfare workers to manage information related to a
child’s involvement with the child welfare system. Administrative
outcomes gathered from this dataset were related to placement
and child safety. Specifically, data focused on (1) child safety as in-
dicated by reports of child abuse and neglect, and removal from
the home; (2) permanency outcomes, including time to perma-
nency and exit outcomes; and (3) placement stability, including
number of placements and type of placement moves.
Descriptive statistics related to demographics, to placement
history, and to the reason for child welfare intervention were taken
from the CWS/CMS database. Further analysis was used to exam-
ine differences between the treatment and comparison groups. The
main independent variable included for analysis was study group,
defined as treatment or comparison. Multivariate analysis con-
trolled for time in the study, which is defined as study child enroll-
ment date to the date of the data extraction (December 31, 2002).
Dependent variables were linked to safety, placement stability, and
permanency. Specific variables include (1) safety: reports of sub-
stantiated maltreatment, removal from caregiver during the study
period, and court finding of dependency declaration during the
study period; (2) placement stability: number of placement moves,
placement moves as a dichotomous measure (0 moves or 1 or more
moves), and steps up in placement (from a foster home or foster

family agency to a group home); and (3) permanency: case closure
during the study period, exit type, and time from case opening to
case closure.
Data on safety-related outcomes for both counties were exam-
ined using chi-square (or the alternative Fisher’s Exact Test) for re-
ports of maltreatment. In Fresno, additional measures of safety, in-
cluding removal from the caregiver and court ordered dependency
declarations, were explored. Placement stability was not examined
in Fresno, since all children were at home at the time of enrollment.
In Riverside, placement moves were explored using both chi-square
and logistic regression. Permanency outcomes were explored in
both counties. In Fresno, analysis was restricted to chi-square analy-
sis examining closure types. In Riverside, case closure, exit type
and time to permanency were explored using chi-square, and lo-
gistic regression.
Results
To assess safety-related outcomes for the treatment and comparison
groups in both counties, reports of substantiated maltreatment dur-
ing the study period were explored. Additionally, in Fresno County,
since the intervention was designed to decrease court intervention
and decrease out-of-home placement, removal from the caregiver
and court orders of dependency declaration were examined. Al-
though substantiated maltreatment often precedes removal or de-
pendency declaration, it was important to examine whether this was
the case for children in both the treatment and comparison groups.
Substantiated maltreatment was rare, with only six cases in Fresno
and seven in Riverside. There were no differences between the treat-
ment and comparison groups on substantiated maltreatment in ei-
ther county (Fresno p ! .0821; Riverside p ! .2294).
In Fresno, only one child was removed from the caregiver dur-
ing the study period by way of a noncourt voluntary action. Al-
though this child was in the treatment group, cell sizes are too
Berzin et al. 45
small to conduct significance tests to examine group differences.

Court findings of dependency declaration in Fresno were also ex-
plored to gauge child safety during the study period. In Fresno, no
children had dependency declared during the study period.
Placement Stability
In Riverside, all study children were in out-of-home placement at
enrollment. One child in the treatment group moved to a group
home during the study period; however, the number of events is
too small to compare “steps up” in placement for the two groups.
Placement moves ranged from 0 to 5 for both the treatment and
comparison groups. There were no significant differences in the
mean number of moves (treatment mean ! .94 [SD ! 1.36]; control
mean ! .95 [SD ! 1.51]) in each group (p ! .977). When examin-
ing placement moves using a dichotomous measure (0 moves or
1 or more move) again, no statistical differences were found be-
tween groups (p ! .83). Logistic regression also showed no statis-
tical differences between the odds of one or more placement moves
for the treatment versus comparison group when controlling for
time in study (p ! .925).
Permanency-Related Outcomes
As with placement outcomes, permanency-related outcomes were
less pertinent to the study population in Fresno. In Fresno, since
cases were part of voluntary family maintenance (VFM) and court
dependence was never initiated, case closure refers only to a case
being closed with the VFM program and services ending; court
status was unaffected. Of the 48 Fresno cases closed during the
study, 30 closed in the experimental group and 18 in the control
group. There was no significant difference in the number of cases
that closed in the two groups (p ! .513). Of the cases that closed,
the majority closed due to family stabilization (64.6%, n ! 31) or to
the family refusing further services after enrolling in the VFM pro-
gram (31.3%, n ! 15). When examining group differences for the
most common exit types no significant differences were found in
exit type between the treatment and comparison groups. Of cases

that closed due to family stabilization, 18 were in the treatment
group and 13 were in the comparison (p ! .333). There were 11 treat-
ment cases closed due to family refusal of services while 4 com-
parison cases closed due to family refusal (p ! .424).
Logistic regression also suggested that there were no signifi-
cant differences between the groups in terms of the likelihood of
the case closing due to family stabilization (p ! .246) or service re-
fusal (p ! .388) when controlling for time in study. Families in the
treatment group showed a decreased likelihood to stabilize and an
increased likelihood to refuse services, although neither difference
was statistically significant.
The remainder of the analyses on permanency pertains only to
Riverside. Permanency was first examined by looking at case clo-
sures for children in the study. For Riverside, case closure repre-
sented a change in court status and the case being closed with the
child welfare system. Exit types for case closure for children in the
study are shown in Table 2. Statistical analysis of individual exit
type was not possible due to small sample size.
Overall, 40.7% (n ! 11/27) of children in the treatment group
and 33.3% (n ! 6/18) of the comparison group had their case
closed for a positive reason during the study period; no cases were
closed due to AWOL (absence without leave) or hospitalization.
There was no statistically significant difference in case closure be-
tween the groups (p ! .616). Four children in the treatment group
and one in the comparison group exited the study due to court or-
dered termination; no further information was available to indi-
cate whether this was a positive reason for case closure so they
were eliminated from this analysis.
When examining case closure using multivariate analysis and
controlling for time in the study, again, there were no statistical dif-
ferences found in the two groups. Being in the treatment group in-
creased the odds of case closure by 1.59 when controlling for time,
but this result was not statistically significant (p ! .513).
Berzin et al. 47
TABLE 2
Riverside: Exit Type
EXIT TYPE TREATMENT COMPARISON

Reunification 7 0
Adoption 1 0
Legal Guardianship 3 0
Kin-GAP/Relative Placement 0 3
Family Stabilized 0 3
TOTAL 11 6
For children whose case was closed, the average time to perma-
nency was 20.81 months (SD ! 5.82) for the treatment group and
17.25 months (SD ! 9.34) for the comparison group. No significant
differences were found in the length of time to permanency (p !
.530).
Discussion
The California Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration
Project was a unique opportunity to test the effects of FGDM on
child welfare outcomes in the context of an experimental design.
The findings in the waiver study suggest that children in the treat-
ment group, who received FGDM, were not worse off than chil-
dren receiving traditional services in the areas of safety, perma-
nence, and placement stability. Though previous research has
suggested positive outcomes for families receiving FGDM related
to placement stability and maltreatment (McDonald & Associates,
2000; Pennell & Burford, 1994; Vesneski & Kemp, 2000) this study
did not support positive child-level safety and placement out-
comes because of FGDM.
FGDM is a collaborative intervention that increases family
supports with the aim of ensuring child safety and placement
stability (Merkel-Holguin, Nixon, & Burford, 2003). To this aim,

Fresno County implemented FGDM with the hopes of increasing
child safety and reducing out-of-home placements for families in
VFM. Since the intervention would bring family members into the
process and create a wider safety net for families, it was assumed
that FGDM would lead to better results for child participants. At
best, the intervention resulted in no worse outcomes than standard
services. There was some indication, moreover, that there was a
trend in the treatment group toward higher rates of maltreatment,
removal from caregiver, a decreased likelihood to stabilize place-
ment, and an increased likelihood to refuse services (although
none of these findings were statistically significant).
Similarly, in Riverside, where the goal of intervention was place-
ment stability and permanence, the treatment group also showed
comparable outcomes to the comparison group and a similar (sta-
tistically nonsignificant) trend of worse outcomes for the treatment
group regarding substantiated maltreatment. An increase in sub-
stantiated maltreatment may suggest increased vigilance by the
social worker for these cases or increased reporting by family mem-
bers who had been included in the child welfare process. Place-
ment stability outcomes were comparable for the two groups. A
greater percentage of children in the treatment group did exit from
care during the study period, but again this result was not statisti-
cally significant. It is worth noting, however, that permanency—
defined as reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship—was more
common in the treatment group.
Though results in both counties indicate that the intervention
may not lead to more positive outcomes, alternatively, it may be
that this evaluation was unable to detect subtle differences be-
tween the groups due to small sample size. Power analysis (see,
for example, Cohen, 1988) suggests groups would need to differ
by more than 15% in the proportion of youth experiencing an
event (depending on the rarity of the event) to detect statistical
significance. The small sample size may limit the ability to test for
differences in robust child welfare outcomes, but it also may be
Berzin et al. 49
indicative of the counties’ difficulty enrolling a large number of

families in the study. Contextual results from the waiver process
study suggest that the intervention was not implemented and op-
erated with sufficient integration into other agency and commu-
nity activities to maximize enrollment (Center for Social Services
Research, 2004). The insulation of the intervention from other
agency activities and community efforts led to outside skepticism
of the project, constant threats of budget cuts, and limited com-
munity involvement in planning and implementation. This re-
sulted in limiting enrollment and sample size. Enrollment was
also affected by both counties’ heavy reliance on a single person
to do intake for the program; when this person was not available,
enrollment suffered considerably.
The process study also revealed that during the course of the
study, there was a shift in how the target population was defined
which could have resulted in making it more difficult to statisti-
cally discern differences in the two groups over time if, in fact, the
intervention had been effective. Examples of this shift include a re-
definition of family support for eligibility in Fresno and changes in
requirements about the child’s age and placement type in River-
side. Fresno administrators had originally wanted families en-
rolled in the program to have three support people outside the
home to attend the conference, but eventually changed this re-
quirement to include families who had three potential conference
participants inside or outside of the home. Changes in Riverside
included lowering the age of eligible participants and allowing
youth in kinship placements to participate (initial eligibility was
limited to children ages 6 to 12 in nonkin placements). These study
limitations also raise serious issues about implementation. Al-
though sample size is a limitation in analyzing and understanding
outcome results, it is also an indicator of problematic aspects of im-
plementation in these counties. Counties need to carefully con-
sider FGDM’s role within the larger agency context and their tar-
get population when implementing FGDM.
Additional results stemming from the process study and

follow-up surveys administered to the child welfare worker and
caregiver suggested that FGDM did not maintain the family’s in-
volvement with services beyond the initial conference plan (Cen-
ter for Social Services Research, 2004). Once conference plans
were finalized, family members had difficulty completing plan
tasks and maintaining momentum around these activities. The
intervention’s reliance on a single family conference meeting
may not be enough to sustain the long-term activities needed to
impact family behavior and in turn, child welfare outcomes.
Though the literature does include a follow-up phase in the
FGDM process (Merkel-Holguin, 1996), county implementation
which focuses so heavily on planning activities and the confer-
ence itself may neglect this important post-conference phase.
Without extended follow-up and sufficient contact, family mem-
bers may be no more likely to follow plan elements than they
would in traditional case planning. In addition, since follow-up
requires as intensive an effort on the part of agency staff (that is,
going beyond the natural boundaries between agency depart-
ments, and between the agency and the community), the place-
ment of FGDM as an integral part of agency programming, not
a stand-alone pilot project and community involvement with the
program and its creation, may be important for successful im-
plementation of this phase. This weakness in this particular im-
plementation of FGDM in California should be explored in other
settings.
Child welfare placement outcomes alone may not be the appro-
priate avenue to measure the impact of FGDM on families. Since
child welfare outcomes often relate to broad changes and may also
have systemic causes, focus on these outcomes may not adequately
capture the full picture. FGDM may have a more immediate impact
on process indicators, such as referral for services, or on more prox-
imal outcomes, such as “family engagement” (although in this study
“service refusal” occurred in one-fifth of clients in the treatment and
Berzin et al. 51
comparison groups, an indication of problems engaging some fam-

ilies). Evidence from case studies conducted in Fresno and River-
side suggest that FGDM may have had benefits related to bringing
family and community members together, providing a mechanism
for information sharing, providing families with additional serv-
ices, and giving the family a role in making child welfare decisions.
While these benefits may be substantial, it remains to be seen
whether there are logical links between these process indicators
and outcomes in the domains of safety, permanence, and placement
stability.
Further research should examine the impact of FGDM using
larger samples that allow for more precise detection of group
differences. Since this intervention was administered at a family
level, one option would be to use sibling data to increase the
sample size. This increased power might allow researchers to
detect group differences where they exist.
In addition to problems related to small sample size, contam-
ination may have occurred in this study, impacting the ability to
detect differences between the treatment and comparison groups.
Although the researchers attempted to control contamination in
the study design where possible, workers who were exposed to
FGDM philosophies and principles may have altered their work
with families in the comparison group leading to the inability to
detect group differences. With caseworkers more aware of FGDM
philosophies, clients in the comparison group may have re-
ceived some benefits of the intervention even though they were
only supposed to receive traditional services. This highlights the
powerful influence of caseworkers’ values and knowledge of
FGDM principles, which would be important to examine in fur-
ther research.
FGDM may also need to be explored in the context of overall
agency change in attitudes and practices. As child welfare systems
are undergoing significant reform, the effects of interventions such
as FGDM may be lost in the context of these broader reforms.
FGDM may be utilized as one aspect of overall agency change ef-

forts, but may not create the desired impact when implemented in-
dependently. Attempts may be made to integrate this intervention
into these overall reforms, piggybacking on other practices that
promote family involvement and collaboration.
Child welfare services are at a crossroads, with many states
given the opportunity to forward innovation using federal funding.
With increasingly tight budgets and demands for cost-neutral, ef-
fective programs, however, it is important that child welfare pro-
grams are included in overall efforts to improve agency perform-
ance, implemented correctly, and evaluated in ways that are
appropriate to their scope of service. Though this study provides
an important step in this evaluation process, larger studies will be
needed to truly assess the program’s effectiveness. As these pro-
grams are being developed, more precision will be needed to tar-
get programs toward the appropriate families and to use re-
sources effectively.
References
Ban, P. (1996). Implementing and evaluating family group conferences with children and
families in Victoria Australia. In J. Hudson (Ed.), Family group conferences: Perspectives on
policy and practice (pp. 140–151). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Center for Social Services Research. (May 31, 2004). The California title IV-E child welfare
waiver demonstration study evaluation: Final report. Berkeley: University of California.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Doolan, M., & Phillips, P. (2000). Conferencing in New Zealand: Child protection. In G. Bur-
ford & J. Hudson (Eds.), Family group conferences: New directions in community-centered
child and family practice. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Graber, L., Keys, T., & White, J. (1996). Family group decision-making in the United States:
The case of Oregon. In A. M. J. Hudson, G. Maxwell, & B. Galaway (Ed.), Family group
conferences: Perspectives on policy and practice (pp. 180–194). Monsey, NY: Willow Tree
Press.
Berzin et al. 53
Hassall, I. (1996). Origin and development of family group conferences. In A. M. J. Hudson,

G. Maxwell, & B. Galaway (Ed.), Family group conferences: Perspectives on policy and prac-
tice (pp. 17–36). Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press.
Immarigeon, R. (1996). Family group conferences in Canada and the United States: An
overview. In J. Hudson, A. Morris, G. Maxwell, & B. Galaway (Eds.), Family group con-
ferences: Perspectives on policy and practice. Monsey, New York: Willow Tree Press.
Maluccio, A. N., & Daly, J. (2000). Family group conferences as “good” child welfare prac-
tice. In G. Burford & J. Hudson (Eds.), Family group conferencing: New directions in com-
munity-centered child and family practice (pp. 242–252). New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Marsh, P., & Crow, G. (1998). Family group conferences in child welfare. London: Blackwell Sci-
ence, Ltd.
McDonald, W. R., & Associates. (2000). Santa Clara family conference model outcome evaluation.
Sacramento, CA: Author.
Merkel-Holguin, L. (1996). Putting families back into the child protection partnership: Family
group decision making. Retrieved September 1, 2008, from www.americanhumane.org/
site/PageServer?pagename!pc_fgdm_what_is.
Merkel-Holguin, L. (2000). What is FGDM? Putting families back into the child protection
partnership: Family group decision making. National Center on Family Group Decision
Making, FGDM Online. Retrieved May 24, 2004, from www.americanhumane.org/
site/PageServer?pagename!pc_fgdm_what_is.
Merkel-Holguin, L., Nixon, P., & Burford, G. (2003). Learning with families: A synopsis of
FGDM research and evaluation in child welfare. Protecting Children, 18(1/2), 2–11.
Moore, D., & McDonald, J. (2000). Guiding principles of the conferencing process. In G. Bur-
ford & J. Hudson (Eds.), Family group conferencing: New directions in community centered
child and family practice. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Pennell, J., & Burford, G. (1994). Widening the circle: Family group decision making. Jour-
nal of Child and Youth Care, 9(1), 1–11.
Pennell, J., & Burford, G. (2000). Family group decision making: Protecting children and
women. Child Welfare, 79(2), 131–158.
Ryburn, M. (1993). A new model for family decision making in child care and protection.
Early Child Development and Care, 86, 1–10.
Sieppert, J. D., Hudson, J., & Unrau, Y. (2000). Family group conferencing in child welfare:
Lessons from a demonstration project. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary
Human Services, 81(4), 382–391.
Sundell, K., & Vinnerljung, B. (2004). Outcomes of family group conferencing in Sweden: A
3-year follow-up. Child Abuse and Neglect, 28, 267–287.
Thomas, K. L., Cohen, E., & Berrick, J. D. (2003). California’s waiver evaluation of FGDM:
A unique opportunity. Protecting Children, 18(1/2), 52–57.
Vesneski, W., & Kemp, S. (2000). Families as resources: The Washington state family group
conference project. In G. Burford & J. Hudson (Eds.), Family group conferencing: New direc-
tions in community-centered child and family practice (pp. 312–323). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine
de Gruyter.

Family Group Decision Making-Child Welfare 2009 Berzin

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Family Group Decision Making-Child Welfare 2009 Berzin

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Journal_JulyAug08:15097_CWLA_JulyAugust2008 3/9/09 10:00 AM Page 35

Does Family Group Decision

Stephanie Cosner Berzin, Ed Cohen, Karen Thomas, and

This article describes the evaluation of two family group

36 CHILD WELFARE • VOL. 87, #4

Family Group Decision Making

et al., 2000). Parallel to the rise of family group conferencing in

38 CHILD WELFARE • VOL. 87, #4

(2) inviting family members and other participants, (3) defining

Evaluating FGDM Effectiveness

Vesneski & Kemp, 2000). Pennell and Burford (2000) examined

40 CHILD WELFARE • VOL. 87, #4

of extended family involvement in the comparison group may been

The California Title IV-E Waiver Evaluation

Though both counties implemented FGDM as part of the

42 CHILD WELFARE • VOL. 87, #4

*Note: N sizes in the table reflect missing data.

assessment phase at the conference and the development of the

44 CHILD WELFARE • VOL. 87, #4

moves), and steps up in placement (from a foster home or foster

small to conduct significance tests to examine group differences.

46 CHILD WELFARE • VOL. 87, #4

exit type between the treatment and comparison groups. Of cases

EXIT TYPE TREATMENT COMPARISON

48 CHILD WELFARE • VOL. 87, #4

stability (Merkel-Holguin, Nixon, & Burford, 2003). To this aim,

indicative of the counties’ difficulty enrolling a large number of

50 CHILD WELFARE • VOL. 87, #4

Additional results stemming from the process study and

comparison groups, an indication of problems engaging some fam-

52 CHILD WELFARE • VOL. 87, #4

FGDM may be utilized as one aspect of overall agency change ef-

Hassall, I. (1996). Origin and development of family group conferences. In A. M. J. Hudson,

54 CHILD WELFARE • VOL. 87, #4

Human Services, 81(4), 382–391.

Potrebbero piacerti anche