Assessing Model Fidelity in Two Family Group Decision-Making Programs

Berzin, Stephanie Cosner; Thomas, Karen L.; Cohen, Ed

doi:10.1300/j079v34n02_05

Cited by 25 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Research in the field of child care provides evidence for the difficulty of implementing FGC (e.g., Adams & Chandler, 2004;Cosner Berzin, Thomas, & Cohen, 2007;Holland & O'Neill, 2006;Holland, Scourfield, O'Neill, & Pithouse, 2005;Lupton & Nixon, 1999;Marsh & Crow, 1998;Sundell & Vinnerljung, 2004). In childcare, the role of social workers appears to be crucial in the extent to which the model is used in practice (Sundell, 2000).…”

Section: The Struggles To Implement Family Group Conferencingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Family Group Conferencing for older adults: Social workers’ views

Metze

Abma

Kwekkeboom

2018

Journal of Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Family Group Conferencing as deployed in child care might be useful in elderly care to strengthen older adults’ social networks and self-mastery. When Family Group Conferencing was implemented for older adults in the Netherlands, social workers were reluctant to refer. To discover reasons for this reluctance, we examined social workers’ views and attitudes concerning Family Group Conferencing for their clients. Findings In an initial exploratory study, we distributed a survey among social workers who worked with older adults and were informed about Family Group Conferencing, followed by three focus groups of social workers with and without Family Group Conferencing experience. We also held semi-structured individual interviews with social workers and an employee of the Dutch Family Group Conferencing foundation. The respondents were positive about Family Group Conferencing, but hesitant about referring their older clients. Reasons were: they were already working with their clients’ social networks; they feared losing control over the care process; and they wondered how they could motivate their clients. They also reported that their clients themselves were reluctant, because they seemed to fear that Family Group Conferencing would lose them self-mastery, and they did not want to burden their social networks. Applications Our findings indicate that implementing Family Group Conferencing in elderly care is a complicated and slow process, partly because social workers have little experience with Family Group Conferencing. To facilitate social workers it might be necessary to offer them more guidance, in a joint process with the Family Group Conferencing foundation. One might also experiment with alterations to the Family Group Conferencing model, for example, by focusing less on family networks and more on reciprocity.

show abstract

Section: The Struggles To Implement Family Group Conferencingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Family Group Conferencing for older adults: Social workers’ views

Metze

Abma

Kwekkeboom

2018

Journal of Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Only four of the included studies were conducted outside the United States; two in Canada (Cunning & Bartlett, 2006 ; Pennell & Burford, 2000 ) and one in Sweden (Sundell & Vinnerljung, 2004 ) and one in the Netherlands (Dijkstra, 2018). Of the fifteen studies reviewed, just three were RCTs (Berzin, 2006 ; Dijkstra, 2018; Hollinshead, 2017). The other studies employed quasi‐experimental designs, using parallel cohorts.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Subsequent decades also saw a focus on developing family participation in decision‐making, and planning, in order to keep children safe within their own family (Pennell & Burford, 2000 ). Developing mutual relationships between families, children and professionals became a widely accepted priority in child protection work (Berzin, 2006 ). While the progression of child welfare policy and practice has taken a number of twists and turns over the past 40 years, and differs considerably across regions, there has clearly been a shift towards sharing power and problem‐solving with families (Frost, Abram, & Burgess, 2014 ; Rauktis et al, 2010 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While commentary on the implementation and success of FGDM is extensive, relatively few studies of efficacy have been conducted (Frost et al, 2014 ). The current evidence base is routinely cited as positive by researchers studying FGDM, together with reviewers, and commentators on the topic area (including but not limited to: Baumann, 2006 ; Berzin, 2006 ; Burford, 1999 ; Lambert, Johnson, & Wang, 2017 ; Pennell, Edwards, & Burford, 2010 ; Sheets et al, 2009 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Frost et al ( 2014 ) also completed a narrative review and reported mixed results, while also offering encouragement for the continued practice of FGDM. Frost et al suggest that studies by Crampton and Jackson ( 2007 ); and Pennell and Burford ( 2000 ) provide positive results; whilst Berzin ( 2006 ) and Sundell and Vinnerljung ( 2004 ) provide neutral findings. Frost et al go on to describe how service users’ evaluations of the process of FGDM are overwhelmingly positive.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Family group decision‐making for children at risk of abuse or neglect: A systematic review

McGinn

Best

Wilson

et al. 2020

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Capturing the scale of child maltreatment is difficult, but few would argue that it is anything less than a global problem which can affect victims’ health and well‐being throughout their life. Systems of detection, investigation and intervention for maltreated children are the subject of continued review and debate. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of the formal use of family group decision‐making (FGDM) in terms of child safety, permanence (of child's living situation), child and family well‐being, and client satisfaction with the decision‐making process. Search Methods Both published and unpublished manuscripts were considered eligible for this review. Library staff from Scholarly Information (Brownless Biomedical Library) University of Melbourne, conducted 14 systematic bibliographic searches. Reviewers also checked the reference lists of all relevant articles obtained, and reference lists from previously published reviews. Researchers also hand‐searched 10 relevant journals. Selection Criteria Study samples of children and young people, aged 0–18 years, who have been the subject of a child maltreatment investigation, were eligible for this review. Studies had to have used random assignment to create treatment and control groups; or, parallel cohorts in which groups were assessed at the same point in time. Any form of FGDM, used in the course of a child maltreatment investigation or service, was considered an eligible intervention if it involved: a concerted effort to convene family, extended family, and community members; and professionals; and involved a planned meeting with the intention of working collaboratively to develop a plan for the safety well‐being of children; with a focus on family‐centred decision‐making. Data Collection and Analysis Two review authors independently extracted the necessary data from each study report, using the software application Covidence. Covidence highlighted discrepancies between data extracted by separate reviewers, further analysis was conducted until a consensus was reached on what data were to be included in the review. Two authors also independently conducted analyses of study bias. Main Results Eighteen eligible study reports were found, providing findings from 15 studies, involving 18 study samples. Four were randomised controlled trials (RCTs; N = 941) the remainder employed quasi‐experimental designs with parallel cohorts. Three of the quasi‐experimental studies used prospective evaluations of nonrandomly assigned comparison groups (N = 4,368); the rest analysed pre‐existing survey data, child protection case files or court data (N = 91,786). The total number of children studied was 97,095. The longest postintervention follow‐up period was 3 years. Only four studies were conducted outside the United States; two in Canada and one in Sweden and one in the Netherlands. The review authors judged there to be a moderate or high risk of bias, in most of the bias categories considered. Only one study referenced a study protocol. Eleven of the fi...

show abstract

Family Group Conferencing: A Theoretical Underpinning

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last decade, Family Group Conferences (FGCs) have increasingly been used to help people and their networks deal with their problems. The FGC fits well with the call for equal rights and self-management coming from clients and client movements, as well as the economy-driven pressure towards more informal and less professional care coming from governments. However, there is a lack of knowledge about the underlying theory to explain how the FGC works. In this article, we aim to provide such a theoretical basis by examining how the concept of empowerment can be linked with the basic assumptions underlying the FGC. Can making a plan of their own indeed help to empower people and if so, how does the process of empowerment proceed? Empowerment is often mentioned as a goal of the FGC, but authors are not unanimous when it comes to the operationalisation of empowerment, especially on the relational level of the person in his or her social context. In the article, we use the concepts of relational autonomy and resilience to conceptualize empowerment on the relational and individual level.

show abstract

Assessing Model Fidelity in Two Family Group Decision-Making Programs

Cited by 25 publications

References 17 publications

Family Group Conferencing for older adults: Social workers’ views

Family Group Conferencing for older adults: Social workers’ views

Family group decision‐making for children at risk of abuse or neglect: A systematic review

Family Group Conferencing: A Theoretical Underpinning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About