Does family group decision making affect child welfare outcomes? Findings from a randomized control study

Child Welfare

Volumn 87, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 35-54

  Berzin, Stephanie Cosner ^a   Cohen, Ed ^b   Thomas, Karen ^c   Dawson, William C ^d  

^a BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

^b SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c CHILDREN S HOSPITAL OAKLAND   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHILD; CHILD ABUSE; CHILD WELFARE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COOPERATION; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; FOLLOW UP; FOSTER CARE; GROUP PROCESS; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SAFETY; SOCIAL SUPPORT; SOCIAL WORK; UNITED STATES;

CALIFORNIA; CHILD; CHILD ABUSE; CHILD WELFARE; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FINANCING, GOVERNMENT; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; FOSTER HOME CARE; GROUP PROCESSES; HUMANS; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; MALE; PROFESSIONAL-FAMILY RELATIONS; SAFETY; SOCIAL SUPPORT; SOCIAL WORK;

EID: 65549155222     PISSN: 00094021     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Ban, P. (1996). Implementing and evaluating family group conferences with children and families in Victoria Australia. In J. Hudson (Ed.), Family group conferences: Perspectives on policy and practice (pp. 140-151). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
2. Center for Social Services Research. (May 31, 2004). The California title IV-E child welfare waiver demonstration study evaluation: Final report. Berkeley: University of California.
3. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Doolan, M., & Phillips, P. (2000). Conferencing in New Zealand: Child protection. In G. Burford & J. Hudson (Eds.), Family group conferences; New directions in community-centered child and family practice. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
5. Graber, L., Keys, T., & White, J. (1996). Family group decision-making in the United States: The case of Oregon. In A. M. J. Hudson, G. Maxwell, & B. Galaway (Ed.), Family group conferences: Perspectives on policy and practice (pp. 180-194). Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press.
6. Hassall, I. (1996). Origin and development of family group conferences. In A. M. J. Hudson, G. Maxwell, & B. Galaway (Ed.), Family group conferences: Perspectives on policy and practice (pp. 17-36). Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press.
7. Immarigeon, R. (1996). Family group conferences in Canada and the United States: An overview. In J. Hudson, A. Morris, G. Maxwell, & B. Galaway (Eds.), Family group conferences: Perspectives on policy and practice. Monsey, New York: Willow Tree Press.
8. Maluccio, A. N., & Daly, J. (2000). Family group conferences as "good" child welfare practice. In G. Burford & J. Hudson (Eds.), Family group conferencing: New directions in community-centered child and family practice (pp. 242-252). New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
9. Marsh, P., & Crow, G. (1998). Family group conferences in child welfare. London: Blackwell Science, Ltd.
10. McDonald, W. R., & Associates. (2000). Santa Clara family conference model outcome evaluation. Sacramento, CA: Author.
11. Merkel-Holguin, L. (1996). Putting families back into the child protection partnership: Family group decision making. Retrieved September 1, 2008, from www.americanhumane.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pc-fgdm-what-is.
12. Merkel-Holguin, L. (2000). What is FGDM? Putting families back into the child protection partnership: Family group decision making. National Center on Family Group Decision Making, FGDM Online. Retrieved May 24, 2004, from www.americanhumane.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pc-fgdm-what-is.
13. 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.
14. Moore, D., & McDonald, J. (2000). Guiding principles of the conferencing process. In G. Burford & J. Hudson (Eds.), Family group conferencing: New directions in community centered child and family practice. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
15. Pennell J., & Burford, G. (1994). Widening the circle: Family group decision making. Journal of Child and Youth Care, 9(1), 1-11.
16. Pennell, J., & Burford, G. (2000). Family group decision making: Protecting children and women. Child Welfare, 79(2), 131-158.
17. Rybum, M. (1993). A new model for family decision making in child care and protection. Early Child Development and Care, 86, 1-10.
18. Sieppert, J. D., Hudson, J., & Unrau, Y. (2000). Family group conferencing in child welfare: Lessons from a demonstration project. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 81(4), 382-391.
19. Sundell K., & Vinnerljung, B. (2004). Outcomes of family group conferencing in Sweden: A 3-year follow-up. Child Abuse and Neglect, 28, 267-287. (Pubitemid 38456790)
20. Thomas, K. L., Cohen, E., & Berrick, J. D. (2003). California's waiver evaluation of FGDM: A unique opportunity. Protecting Children, 18(1/2), 52-57.
21. Vesneski, W., & Kemp, S. (2000). Families as resources: The Washington state family group conference project. In G. Burford & J. Hudson (Eds.), Family group conferencing: New directions in community-centered child and family practice (pp. 312-323). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.