Building evidence for family group decision-making in child welfare: operationalizing the intervention

References

• Allan, H., Rautkis, M. B., Pennell, J., Merkel-Holguin, L., & Crampton, D. (2021). Family meetings as a system reform to address disproportionality and disparities. In A. J. Dettlaff (Ed.), Racial Disproportionality and Disparities in the Child Welfare System(pp. 309-338). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• American Humane Association. (2010). Guidelines for family group decision making in child welfare. Retrieved from: http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/medicalschool/departments/pediatrics/subs/can/FGDM/Documents/FGDM%20Guidelines.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Baldwin, T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63–105. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00632.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumann, D., Fluke, J., Dalgleish, L., & Kern, H. (2014). The Decision-making ecology. In A. Shlonsky & R. Benbenishty (Eds.), From Evidence to Outcomes in Child Welfare: An International Reader (pp. 24–41). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berger, P. J., & Neuhaus, R. J. (1977). To empower people: The Role of mediating structures in public policy. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
   Google Scholar
• Blase, K., & Fixsen, D. (2013). Core intervention components: Identifying and operationalizing what makes programs work. Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Office of Human Services Policy. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/core-intervention-components-identifying-and-operationalizing-what-makes-programs-work.
   Google Scholar
• California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse. (2013). Family group decision making: essential components. Retrieved from http://www.cebc4cw.org/program/family-group-decision-making/detailed
   Google Scholar
• Camacho-Gonsalves, T., Leff, H. S., & Torrey, W. C. (2002). Toolkit on manuals and workbooks for psychosocial interventions. Cambridge, MA: The Evaluation Center at HSRI. Retrieved from http://tecathsri.org/materials.asp
   Google Scholar
• Child Welfare League of America. (2003). Standards of excellence for services to strengthen and preserve families with children. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Corwin, T. W., Maher, E. J., Merkel-Holguin, L., Allan, H., Hollinshead, D. M., & Fluke, J. D. (2020). Increasing social support for child welfare-involved families through family group conferencing. The British Journal of Social Work, 50(1), 137–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crampton, D., & Jackson, W. L. (2007). Family group decision making and disproportionality in foster care: A case study. Child Welfare, 86(3), 51–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crea, T. M., & Berzin, S. C. (2009). Family involvement in child welfare decision-making: Strategies and research on inclusive practices. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 3, 305–327. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15548730903129970.
   Google Scholar
• D’Cruz, H., & Stagnitti, K. (2008). Reconstructing child welfare through participatory and child-centered professional practice: A conceptual approach. Child & Family Social Work, 13(2), 156–165. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2007.00528.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DePanfilis, D. (2014). Building, implementing, and sustaining effective child welfare practice: an introduction. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 8(4), 329–332. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2014.939520.
   Google Scholar
• Doolan, M. (2007). Duty calls: the response of law, policy and practice to participation rights in child welfare systems. Protecting Children, 22(1), 10–18.
   Google Scholar
• Doolan, M. (2009). Family group decision making: the importance of independent coordination. Denver: American Humane Association. Retrieved from: http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/medicalschool/departments/pediatrics/subs/can/FGDM/Documents/FGDM%20Web%20Pages/Resources/Issue%20Briefs/pc-fgdm-ib-independent-coord.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Doyle, J., Jr. (2007). Child protection and child outcomes: measuring the effects of foster care. American Economic Review, 97(5), 1583–1610. doi:https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Framework Workgroup. (2014). Framework to design, test, spread, and sustain effective practice in child welfare. Washington, DC: Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, M. W., Richman, J. M., Galinsky, M. J., & Day, S. H. (2009). Intervention research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Galinsky, M. J., Fraser, M. W., Day, S. H., & Richman, J. M. (2013). A primer for the design of practice manuals: four stages of development. Research on Social Work Practice, 23, 219–228. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731512468957.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia, J. A., Sivak, P., & Tibrewal, S. (2003). Transforming relationships in practice and research: what is the stanislaus model?. Protecting Children, 18, 22–29.
   Google Scholar
• Gladstone, J., Dumbrill, G., Leslie, B., Koster, A., Young, M., & Ismaila, A. (2012). Looking at engagement and outcome from the perspectives of child protection workers and parents. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(1), 112–118. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.09.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gladstone, J. W., & Brown, R. A. (2007). Grandparents’ and social workers’ experiences with the child welfare system: A case for mutual resources. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(11), 1439–1453. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.07.002.
   Google Scholar
• Gutierrez, L., Parsons, R., & Cox, E. O. (Eds.). (1998). Empowerment in social work practice: A Sourcebook. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Hollinshead, D. M., Corwin, T., Maher, E., Merkel-Holguin, L., Allan, H., & Fluke, D. (2017). Effectiveness of family group conferencing in preventing repeat referrals to child protective services and out-of-home placements. Child Abuse & Neglect, 69, 285–294. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.04.022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollinshead, D. M., Kim, S., Fluke, J. D., & Merkel-Holguin, L. (2015). Influence of family, agency, and caseworker dynamics on caregivers’ satisfaction with their child protective services experience. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 9(5), 463–486. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2015.1091762.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2014). New Directions in Child Abuse and Neglect Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kempe Center. (2013). Guidelines for Family Group Decision Making: Version 2. Denver, CO: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Knorth, E. J., Harder, A. T., Zandberg, T., & Kendrick, A. J. (2008). Under one roof: A review and selective meta-analysis on the outcomes of residential child and youth care. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(2), 123–140. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.09.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LaBrenz, C. A., & Fong, R. (2016). Outcomes of family centered meetings for families referred to child protective services. Children and Youth Services Review, 71, 93–102. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.10.032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lalayants, M. (2012). Parent engagement in child safety conferences: the role of parent representatives. Child Welfare, 91(6), 9–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lalayants, M. (2014). Parent representation model in child safety conferences. Child Welfare, 92(5), 107–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lalayants, M., & Prince, J. D. (2014). Delinquency, depression, and substance abuse among child welfare-involved adolescents in the United States. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(4), 797–807. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.08.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambert, M. C., Johnson, L. E., & Wang, E. W. (2017). The impact of family group decision-making on preventing removals. Children and Youth Services Review, 78, 89–92. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.05.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Litchfield, M., Gatowski, S., & Dobbin, S. (2003). Improving outcomes for families: results from an evaluation of miami’s FDM program. Protecting Children, 18(1–2), 2–11.
   Google Scholar
• Love, C. (2000). Family group conferencing: Cultural origins, sharing, and appropriation—A Maori reflection. In G. Burford & J. Hudson (Eds.), Family group conferencing: New directions in community-centered child & family practice(pp. 15-30). New York, NY: Walter De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Macgowan, M. J., & Pennell, J. (2001). Building social responsibility through family group conferencing. Social Work with Groups, 24(3/4), 67–87. doi:https://doi.org/10.1300/J009v24n03_06.
   Google Scholar
• McCrae, J., & Fusco, R. A. (2010). Comparison of family group decision making in the USA. Child & Family Social Work, 15(1), 41–55. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2009.00636.x.
   Google Scholar
• Merkel-Holguin, L., & Marcynyszyn, L. (2015). The complexity of fidelity in measuring system change: the case of family group decision making. The British Journal of Social Work, 45(2), 724–736. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcu092.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Metz, A. (2016). Practice profiles: A process for capturing evidence and operationalizing innovations. national implementation research network white paper. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute. NC, United States. Retrieved from: https://fpg.unc.edu/resources/practice-profiles-process-capturing-evidence-and-operationalizing-innovations
   Google Scholar
• Miller, M. (2011). Family team decision making: Does it reduce racial disproportionality in Washington’s child welfare system? (Document No. 11- 03-3901). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, M. (2020). Reimagining child welfare outcomes: learning from family group conferencing. Child & Family Social Work, 25(2), 211–220. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12676.
   Google Scholar
• Oosterman, M., Schuengel, C., Slot, N. W., Bullens, R. A. R., & Doreleijers, T. A. H. (2007). Disruptions in foster care: A review and meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(1), 53–76. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.07.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennell, J. (2003). Achievement of objectives, pre and during conference. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, Department of Social Work.
   Google Scholar
• Pennell, J. (2004). Family group conferencing in child welfare: responsive and regulatory interfaces. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 31(1), 117–135.
   Google Scholar
• Pennell, J. (2005). Checking for model fidelity. In J. Pennell & G. Anderson (Eds.), Widening the circle: The practice and evaluation of family group conferencing with children, youths, and their families (pp. 107–121). Washington, DC: NASW Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pennell, J., & Burford, G. (2000). FGDM: protecting women and children. Child Welfare, 79(2), 131–158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rangihau, J. (1986). Pau-te-ata-tu (daybreak): report of the ministerial advisory committee on a maori perspective for the department of social welfare. Wellington: Department of Social Welfare, Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Rauktis, M. E., Bishop-Fitzpatrick, L., Jung, N., & Pennell, J. (2013). Family group decision making: measuring fidelity to practice principles in public child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(2), 287–295. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.11.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rauktis, M. E., Huefner, J., & Cahalane, H. (2011). Perceptions of fidelity to family group decision-making principles: examining the impact of race, gender, and relationship. Child Welfare, 90(4), 41–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rauktis, M., . E. (2008). Family group decision making: A profile of practices in Pennsylvania 2008. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Child Welfare Training Program. Available at www.pacwcbt.pitt.edu/FGDM_EvaluationPage.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, P. J. (2008). Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation, 14(1), 29–48. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389007084674.
   Google Scholar
• Rosen, A., & Proctor, E. K. (2003). Practice guidelines and the challenge of effective practice. In A. Rosen & E. K. Proctor (Eds.), Developing practice guidelines for social work intervention (pp. 24–41). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ryburn, M. (1993). A new model for family decision making in child care and protection. Early Child Development and Care, 86(1), 1–10. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443930860101.
   Google Scholar
• Sheets, J., Wittenstrom, K., Fong, R., James, J., Tecci, M., Baumann, D. J., & Rodriguez, C. (2009). Evidence-based practice in family group decision-making for anglo, African American and hispanic families. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(11), 1187–1191. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.08.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Testa, M. F., DePanfilis, D., Huebner, R., Dionne, R., Deakins, B., & Baldwin, M. (2014). Bridging the gap between research and practice: the work of the steering team for the child welfare research and evaluation translational framework workgroup. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 8(4), 333–353. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2014.915910.
   Google Scholar
• Thyer, B. A., & Myers, L. L. (2011). The quest for evidence-based practice: A view from the United States. Journal of Social Work, 11(1), 8–25. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017310381812.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2019). Child maltreatment 2017. Available from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/research-data-technology/reporting-systems/ncands
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families. (2015). Building the Evidence for Family Group Decision-Making in Child Welfare. HHS-2015-ACF-ACYF-CF-1008.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2018). The AFCARS report, preliminary FY’2017 estimates as of August 10, 2018 – no. 25. Available from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/defalt/files/cb/afcarsreport25.pdf
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Printing Office. (2008). Fostering connections to success and increasing adoptions act of 2008. Retrieved from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-110publ351/pdf/PLAW-110publ351.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Walton, E., McKenzie, M., & Connolly, M. (2005). Private family time: the heart of the family group conference. Protecting Children, 19(4), 17–24.
   Google Scholar
• Weigensberg, E., Barth, R., & Guo, S. (2009). Family group decision making: A propensity score analysis to evaluate child and family services at baseline and after 36-months. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(3), 383–390. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.09.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheeler, C., & Johnson, S. (2003). Evaluating family group decision making: the santa clara example. Protecting Children, 18, 65–69.
   Google Scholar