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

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 383-390

  Weigensberg, Elizabeth C ^a   Barth, Richard P ^b   Guo, Shenyang ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Child welfare; Family group decision making; National Study of Child and Adolescent Well Being; Propensity score matching

Indexed keywords

EID: 59349119707     PISSN: 01907409     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.09.001     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Berzin S.C. Using sibling data to understand the impact of family group decision-making on child welfare outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006) 1449-1458
2. Burford G. Advancing innovations: Family group decision making as community-centered child and family work. Protecting Children 16 (2000) 4-20
3. In: Burford G., and Hudson J. (Eds). Family group conferencing: New directions in community-centered child & family practice (2000), New York, Aldine de Gruyter
4. Center for Social Services Research, University of California at Berkeley. Title IV-E child welfare waiver demonstration project, Intensive services: Final report (2004). http://cssr.berkeley.edu/research_units/cwrc/publications_details.html#final Retrieved October 2, 2007 from http://cssr.berkeley.edu/research_units/cwrc/publications_details.html#final
5. Center for the Study of Social Policy. Bringing families to the table: A comparative guide to family meetings in child welfare (2002). http://www.cssp.org/uploadfiles/Bringing_families.pdf Retrieved October 3, 2004 from www.cssp.org/uploadfiles/Bringing_families.pdf
6. Crampton D. Evaluating FGDM: What are the expected outcomes and how can they best be measured. American Humane Association Children's Division, 1997 National roundtable series on family group decision making: Summary of proceedings (1997), Author, Englewood, CO 59-65
7. Crampton D.S. Family group decision making in Kent County, Michigan: The Family and Community Compact. Protecting Children 18 (2003) 81-83
8. Crampton D.S. Family involvement interventions in child protection: Learning from contextual integrated strategies. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 31 (2004) 175-198
9. Crampton D. When do social workers and family members try family group decision making? A process evaluation. International Journal of Child and Family Welfare 3 (2006) 131-144
10. Crampton D. Research review: Family group decision-making: A promising practice in need of more programme theory and research. Child and Family Social Work 12 (2007) 202-209
11. Crampton D., and Jackson W.L. Family group decision making and disproportionality in foster care: A case study. Child Welfare 86 (2007) 51-69
12. Crampton, D., & Williams, A.D. (2000). Does the type of child maltreatment matter in family group decision making? Paper presented at the 2000 FGDM roundtable proceedings. Englewood, CO: American Humane Association.
13. D'Agostino R.B. Tutorial in biostatistics: Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistics in Medicine 17 (1998) 2265-2281
14. Fraser M.W. Intervention research in social work: Recent advances and continuing challenges. Research on Social Work Practice 14 (2004) 210-222
15. Guo S., Barth R.P., and Gibbons C. Propensity score matching strategies for evaluating substance abuse service for child welfare clients. Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006) 357-383
16. Hosmer D.W., and Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression (1989), John Wiley & Sons, New York
17. Joffee M.M., and Rosenbaum P.R. Propensity scores. American Journal of Epidemiology 150 (1999) 327-333
18. Levine M. The family group conference in the New Zealand Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act of 1989: Review and evaluation. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 18 (2000) 517-556
19. Merkel-Holguin L. Implementation of family group decision making processes in the U.S.: Policies and practices in transition?. Protecting Children 14 (1998) 4-10
20. Merkel-Holguin L. Sharing power with the people: Family group conferencing as a democratic experiment. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 31 (2004) 155-173
21. Merkel-Holguin L., Nixon P., and Burford G. Learning with families: A synopsis of FGDM research and evaluation in child welfare. Protecting Children 18 (2003) 2-11
22. Nixon P., Burford G., Quinn A., and Edelbaum J. A survey of international practices, policy & research on family group conferencing and related practices (2005). http://www.americanhumane.org/site/DocServer/FGDM_www_survey.pdf?docID=2841 Retrieved October 2, 2007 from American Humane Association Website: http://www.americanhumane.org/site/DocServer/FGDM_www_survey.pdf?docID=2841
23. NSCAW Research Group. Methodological lessons from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being: The first three years of the USA's first national probability study of children and families investigated for abuse and neglect. Children and Youth Services Review 24 (2002) 513-541
24. Pennell J., and Burford G. Family group decision making: Protecting children and women. Child Welfare 79 (2000) 131-158
25. Roberts D. Toward a community-based approach to racial disproportionality. Protecting Children 22 (2007) 4-9
26. Rosenbaum P.R., and Rubin D.B. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70 (1983) 41-55
27. Rosenbaum P.R., and Rubin D.B. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. American Statistician 39 (1985) 33-38
28. Rubin D.B. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Annals of Internal Medicine 127 (1997) 757-763
29. Shore N., Wirth J., Cahn K., Yancey B., and Gunderson K. Long term and immediate outcomes of family group conferencing in Washington state. Restorative Practices E-Forum (2001), International Institute for Restorative Practices
30. Sosin M.R. Outcomes and sample selection: The case of a homelessness and substance abuse intervention. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology 55 (2002) 63-91
31. Sundell K., and Vinnerljung B. Outcomes of family group conferencing in Sweden: A 3-year follow-up. Child Abuse & Neglect 28 (2004) 267-287
32. Waites C., Macgowan M.J., Pennell J., Carlton-LaNey I., and Weil M. Increasing the cultural responsiveness of family group conferencing. Social Work 49 (2004) 291-300