Article
Family group decision making (FGDM) offers a strongly inclusive approach to working with families involved with the child welfare system. Family groups (composed of extended family and kin) are engaged and empowered by child welfare agencies to make decisions and develop plans that protect their children from further abuse and neglect. The FGDM process inherently fosters cooperation, collaboration and communication between professionals and families. FGDM is being used in more than 35 states and 22 countries. The practice is also being used in juvenile justice and TANF cases, though not as commonly. The family group conference (FGC) is the model most frequently used, under the FGDM rubric.
As the Hon. Todd A. Hoover, Dauphin County Pennsylvania Juvenile Dependency/Orphan’s Court Judge, remarked:
“I put this frankly: I am not a social worker. I am a judge. My professional training is in the legal field, and while I absolutely mean no disrespect to social workers, I never signed up to be one. Rather, I signed up to make judicial decisions when parties come together and cannot resolve issues. That works well in many situations, but not all, and often not when complicated family issues need to be decided. Inevitably, in litigation, there is a winner and a loser. Family group conferencing allows for win/win resolutions….Listening to FGC participants discuss the worries they have for the children, family strengths and community assets, and then tapping their collective wisdom to develop and implement a plan makes sense. Bringing these “common sense” plans into the courtroom—plain and simple—works!”
FGDM processes are carefully managed and crafted to ensure fidelity to the FGDM values and to ensure that those values drive practice. The following five items are critical to supporting exemplary practice in FGDM*:
1. An independent (i.e., non–case carrying) coordinator is responsible for convening the family group meeting with agency personnel. When a critical decision about a child is required, dialogue occurs between the family group and the responsible child protection agency personnel. Providing an independent coordinator who is charged with creating an environment in which transparent, honest and respectful dialogue occurs signifies an agency’s commitment to empowering and non-oppressive practice.
2. 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. Providing the time and resources to seek out family group members and prepare them for their role in the decision-making process signifies an agency’s acceptance of the importance of family groups in formulating safety and care plans.
3. 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 formulate their responses and plans. Providing family groups with time to meet on their own enables them to apply their knowledge and expertise in a familiar setting and to do so in ways that are consistent with their ethnic and cultural decision-making practices. Acknowledging the importance of this time and taking active steps to encourage family groups to plan in this way signifies an agency’s acceptance of its own limitations, as well as its commitment to ensuring that the best possible decisions and plans are made.
4. When agency concerns are adequately addressed, preference is given to a family group’s plan over any other possible plan. In accepting the family group’s lead, an agency signifies its confidence in, and its commitment to, partnering and supporting family groups in caring for and protecting their children, and to building the family group’s capacity to do so.
5. Referring agencies support family groups by providing the services and resources necessary to implement the agreed upon plans. In assisting family groups in implementing their plans, agencies uphold the family group’s responsibility for the care and protection of their children, and contribute by aligning the agency and community resources to support the family group’s efforts.
What Does the Data Tell Us?
While FGDM remains today a core strategy to child welfare system reform, the majority of studies conducted occurred between 2000 and 2006. Collectively, the data demonstrates significant improvements in child and youth safety, permanency and well-being.
For example, a Washington state study of FGCs found that 34% of the 11 to 18 year olds in group care for at least two years returned home or were placed with relatives within six months of an FGC (Gunderson, 2005). In a meta-analysis of 25 studies, Merkel-Holguin, Nixon and Burford found that in family group conferencing:
- Families develop plans that are seen to be safe.
- Plans blend requests for formal services with family-delivered supports and are rich, diverse and original.
- Family members perceive they have considerable voice and decision-making authority.
- Fathers’ and paternal relatives’ involvement is increased.
- Social workers and service providers are satisfied with the process.
- A high percentage of children who require out-of-home placement remain with extended family.
- Decisions and results are timely and plans create stability for children.
- Family supports are increased and family functioning is supported.
- Interests of other family members are safeguarded (Merkel-Holguin et al, 2003).
To learn more about the FGDM process, please visit the American Humane Association’s National Center on Family Group Decision Making at fgdm.org
* Adapted from Doolan, M. (2007). “Duty Calls: The Response of Law, Policy and Practice to Participation Rights in Child Welfare Systems.” Protecting Children, 22(1), 10-19.
|
