Family Group Decision Making: Implications for Permanency Planning

Family group decision making - a relatively new approach to child welfare service delivery developed in both New Zealand and Oregon in the late 1980s - has been gaining attention in some jurisdictions. The model is designed to involve the entire family in making decisions about the best interests of children at risk for abuse and neglect, and while often implemented to address child protection issues, the practice has important implications for permanency planning as well.

Click here to be
helped in California! Pregnant? Click Here

Responding to the Crisis

Interest in this new approach has been sparked by the crisis in child welfare. At issue: more reported cases of abuse and neglect, rising foster care caseloads, multiple placements, and a disproportionate number of children of color who enter and stay in the foster care system longer than their Caucasian counterparts. Unfortunately, these alarming trends have coincided with a decline in the number of available family foster homes, and a shortage of foster and adoptive parents of color. As a result, more young children are placed in congregate care, a situation which further hinders their chances of finding a permanent family. To become healthy, secure adults, children need to be part of a loving, stable, and permanent family.

Recognizing the need for family and cultural continuity, some child welfare agencies have responded to the family foster home shortage by placing more children with extended family members. Agencies that use the family group decision making model have taken this approach a step further by realizing that, not only will extended family members care for children, they are actually best able to make decisions regarding those children's welfare. Through this process, many children find permanence more quickly, either with birth parents or extended family members.

The Models

Two family group decision making models are in use worldwide: New Zealand's Family Group Conference and Oregon's Family Unity. Enacted in 1989, New Zealand's Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act requires child welfare agencies to refer every substantiated case of child abuse and neglect to a family group conference. The conference, which includes extended family members and selected family friends, allows the family to play a prominent role in making and implementing decisions on their children's behalf.

Family group conferences are convened by a care and protection coordinator who informs parents and other family members about the conference and urges them to attend. Professionals who work with the child, such as the social worker, teachers, psychologists, and the attorney, are also encouraged to attend.

The conference itself involves three stages. First, the care and protection coordinator, the social worker, and other professionals explain the case to the family and invite questions. Next, the extended family meets privately to determine whether the child has been abused and neglected and, if so, how the child should be protected. The family then discusses its decision with the social worker and the care and protection coordinator. While it seldom occurs, the parents, custodians, social workers, and care and protection coordinators have the right to veto the family's decision. In such cases, the court resolves the disagreement.

Once a plan is agreed upon, everyone involved is promptly notified. Financial support or community services are provided to the birth parents - or another family caregiver if the child must be removed from the home. Family Group Conference participants determine how and when they will review the case, but if the situation is not resolved after several conferences, the court makes a final decision. In cases where the child has been removed from the home prior to the conference, the court reviews the family's decision directly and then periodically reviews the case.

Developed at the same time, Oregon's Family Unity model is similar to the New Zealand approach. Family Unity was designed to increase children's safety by identifying and supporting the resources and strengths of their families, friends, and communities. The meeting, which is used as a tool to find and build on these resources, involves the birth family, relatives, friends, neighbors, and professionals, and has stages similar to those of the Family Group Conference model.

The models differ, however, in two key respects. First, while professionals are excluded from the family decision-making stage of the Family Group Conference, Family Unity allows the family to include professionals during this portion of the meeting. Second, the birth family can limit participation of extended family members and others in a Family Unity meeting. This discretion, which is not a part of the New Zealand model, is permitted due to federal confidentiality laws designed to protect children and family members from unnecessary disclosures which may be private or embarrassing.

New family group decision making programs have also been developed in California, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Vermont, Washington, Canada, and the U. K. Each community has adapted the model to reflect local families' needs and the agency's philosophical approaches.

Dispelling the Myths

Family group decision making requires a radical shift in the way most child welfare agencies view family strengths. A deeply held commitment to empowering families is at the core of this new approach, and while many child welfare professionals and families are excited about the model, skeptics of family empowerment still exist.

In dominant child protection practice, trained social workers or judges make decisions about child safety and care. Many child welfare professionals are concerned that children's safety may be compromised if the decision-making role is turned over to the family. Many fear that families do not have the ability to make difficult decisions about the child's best interests. Anecdotal reports, however, indicate that families often come up with more creative and thoughtful plans than trained professionals. In some cases, for instance, family members have relocated to care for children and provide support to birth parents. Traditionally, if relative help is sought at all, children are relocated and removed from their parents and communities.

To further allay these concerns, every program implemented to date allows social work professionals or the court to veto family decisions that place the child in jeopardy. Yet in practice, program staff report, family decisions are rarely vetoed.

Another frequently voiced concern is whether child protection cases will be adequately monitored when periodic court involvement is not required. Again, feedback from those who have implemented the model indicates that poor monitoring is not an issue. Jim Nice, Director of the Family Unity Project in Oregon, contends that family members feel empowered by their involvement and take their responsibility to the child very seriously. In addition, he claims, "Social workers report a sense of relief at not being solely responsible for monitoring adherence to the plan. They view the extended family as an extremely useful partner in a process that can be overwhelming."

Benefits and Permanency Implications

While no formal evaluation of family group decision making exists, early results from many of the programs are promising. In addition to the benefits noted above, programs report a decrease in the number of children living in out-of-home care and an increase in the number of children living with kin. These results have important implications for permanency, particularly for children of color who represent over 60 percent of the children in care.

Several family group decision making programs have been developed to address the influx of children of color who come into care and never again find permanence. In New Zealand, the indigenous Maoris encouraged use of the method because they were concerned about the disproportionate number of children who were being taken from their people and placed in government institutions or with strangers. Similarly, Kent County, Michigan's Family & Community Compact was spurred by the recognition that African American children are significantly over-represented in care and stay much longer than Caucasian children. In cases where the child must be removed from the home, these programs - unlike many traditional systems of care - support permanence for children through family continuity.

Since both the New Zealand and Michigan programs aim to divert children from the child welfare system, once the agency and the family agree upon a plan, the social service agency closes the case. Depending on the plan, children are either supported in the home or placed with a relative. If the child must be removed from the home, family group decision making supports both reunification efforts and alternative permanent plans.

When children are placed with kin, birth parents and children are often in frequent contact. With support from kin, parents can work toward improving their parenting capabilities. If parents visit frequently and attempt to resolve whatever issues contributed to abuse or neglect, reunification often occurs.

If, on the other hand, these supports do not encourage birth parents to visit or resolve their issues over time, reunification is unlikely. Some kin caregivers may then adopt their related children, but others are reluctant to do so. Even if they are not adopted, children who remain within an extended family network can benefit from placement stability. Studies show that long-term kinship placements are far less harmful to children than the cycle of repeated moves that sometimes characterizes foster care. Nevertheless, alternative permanent arrangements, such as subsidized guardianship, need to be explored for kinship providers who are not comfortable with adoption.

Family group decision making fits well within cultures that have strong family bonds, and preliminary evidence suggests that it can also enhance permanency planning for all children. Like any other new service delivery model, however, this approach is not the answer for every family, and more outcome-based research is needed to allay common concerns. As Veneese Chandler, Director of the Family & Community Compact in Michigan contends, "This new model challenges the way family and permanency have been defined and can be troubling for social workers, attorneys, and judges who are accustomed to traditional child welfare services." Training on the model, the philosophy behind it, and findings from its implementation in other communities is critical for all child welfare practitioners.

References

Graber, L. and Nice, J. (1991). "The Family Unity Model: The Advanced Skill of Looking for and Building on Strengths." Prevention Report.

Hardin, M., Cole, E., Mickens, J., & Lancour, R. (1996). Family Group Conferences in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases. Washington, DC: ABA Center on Children and the Law.

McDonald, T.P., Allen, R.I., Westerfelt, A., Piliavin, I. (1996). Assessing the Long-Term Effects of Foster Care, A Research Synthesis. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.

Merkel-Holguin, L. (1996). "Putting Families Back into the Child Protection Partnership: Family Group Decision Making." Protecting Children, 12 (3), 4-7.

Resources

James Ramoni, Social Work Supervisor
Social Services Agency, DFCS
Santa Clara County Family Conference Model
1725 Technology Dr.
San Jose, CA 95110
408-441-5197

Veneese Chandler, Executive Director
Family Outreach Center
Family & Community Compact
1939 S. Division
Grand Rapids, MI 49507
616-247-3815

Jim Nice, Director
Family Unity Project
22095 Gooseneck Creek Rd.
Sheridan, OR 97378
503-843-5150

(NACAC)
970 Raymond Avenue, Suite 106
St. Paul, MN 55114
phone: 651-644-3036
fax: 651-644-9848
e-mail: info@nacac.org
Feedback