Elsevier

Children and Youth Services Review

Volume 83, December 2017, Pages 255-263
Children and Youth Services Review

Family group conferencing in Dutch child welfare: Which families are most likely to organize a family group conference?☆

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.11.007Get rights and content

Highlights

  • ‱

    We examined which families were most likely to organize an FGc.

  • ‱

    27% of the families who were offered an FGc completed a conference.

  • ‱

    Dropout reasons were lack of motivation, high-conflict divorce and need for other care.

  • ‱

    Broken families were less likely to complete an FGc.

  • ‱

    Families with indications for child maltreatment were more likely to complete an FGc.

Abstract

Aim of the present study was to identify which families involved in child welfare are willing to organize a Family Group conference (FGc; phase 1) and which are most likely to complete a conference (phase 2). Data were used of a Dutch randomized controlled trial (N = 229). First, the proportion of families willing to organize an FGc and actually completing a conference was determined. Then, for each of the phases, reasons for dropout according to parents, child welfare workers and FGC-coordinators were assessed and categorized and family characteristics were linked to completion rate. Results showed that 60% of the families (137 families) were willing to organize an FGc and 27% (62 families) eventually completed a conference. Reasons for dropout were lack of motivation, high-conflict divorce situations and need for other professional care. Broken and/or newly formed families were less likely to complete a conference, whereas families with indications for child maltreatment were more likely to complete a conference. Future research is needed to examine other possible explanations for the relatively low success rate, such as attitude of child welfare workers towards FGC and the lack of understanding of the aim of FGC by child welfare workers and families.

Introduction

Since many years, there has been an increased emphasis on parental empowerment and including the social network in decisions related to the child welfare trajectory (Straub, 2012). The decision-making model of Family Group Conferencing (FGC) has become, therefore, extremely popular. This method aims to bring together the broader social network of the family – i.e., family members, relatives, friends and other individuals who might provide support – to make a family group plan to solve the child-rearing problems (Burford & Hudson, 2000). The principle underlying FGC is that parents, together with their extended social network, have the right to make important decisions about their children. Additionally, the model of FGC assumes that the effective functioning of families is promoted, as the focus is on the strengths and resources of families that can be used to solve their problems (Crampton, 2007, Graber et al., 1996, Hudson et al., 1996). Another assumption of the model is that, as the extended social network is actively involved, (new) sources of support will be provided (Merkel-Holguin, 2004). Finally, the model is believed to be culturally sensitive and, therefore, appropriate for families with different cultural backgrounds (Merkel-Holguin, 2005).

FGC is believed to be suitable for all families who receive child welfare, and it has been used for a wide range of problems (Crampton, 2007). However, the small sample sizes of effect studies suggest that not all families are able or willing to organize a Family Group conference (FGc) when offered. Moreover, it is the question whether or not an FGc is offered as intended to families in child welfare. For example, Sundell (2000) reported that only one-third of the families in child welfare were offered an FGc by their child welfare worker. In the process of organizing an FGc, two phases can be distinguished. In the first phase, parents decide whether or not to accept the offer of the child welfare worker to organize an FGc. In the second phase, the family and its network either accomplish or do not accomplish an FGc. Crampton and Jackson (2007) reported that about 60% of the families in which out-of-home placement for their children was planned accepted the offer to organize a conference. Sundell and Haeggman (1999) reported a lower percentage; only 25% of the families who were offered an FGc accepted the offer. When families accepted the offer of an FGc, Crampton (2003) showed that in only 29% of the families an FGc was concluded. In the Netherlands, Wijnen-Lunenburg, Beek, Bijl, Gramberg, and Slot (2008) reported that in 80% of the families a conference took place. However, a more recent study, performed in the Netherlands, showed that only 41% of the families who were willing to organize an FGc actually concluded a conference (Dijkstra, Creemers, Asscher, & Stams, 2016).

Although these percentages provide some insights in the process of organizing an FGc, it is yet unclear why, in both phases, many families dropout. So far, no theoretical framework exists to explain which families are most likely to accomplish an FGc (Crampton, 2007) and only few studies examined this question. However, it is important to examine this topic since many families are not reached by the model of FGC. Moreover, insight in motives and factors that affect the likelihood of completion of an FGc allows professionals in child welfare to pay more attention to these factors. In addition, characteristics of the selective group of families that accomplish an FGc should be taken into account when interpreting the results of studies focusing on the effectiveness of FGC.

In order to gain more insight in what factors lead to successful FGC referral and completion, the present study was conducted. Reasons for dropout as well as factors that may influence the dropout rate were examined for both aforementioned phases. With regard to the factors, we examined whether demographic, parent and family characteristics affected the willingness to organize an FGc and the likelihood to accomplish an FGc.

Sundell (2000) is one of the few who asked family members for their reasons for declining the offer to organize FGc. Family members reported lack of a social network or no confidence in the social network as well as reluctance to openly discuss problems with the social network as main reasons for declining an FGc. Moreover, when families already decided upon what kind of care they wanted, they generally were not interested in organizing an FGc. Although Sundell's (2000) study has provided valuable insights, no information was reported about reasons for dropout after having started the model. Onrust, Romijn, and de Beer (2015) provided in their FGC study some information about dropout reasons in this second phase, for example, no need for FGC anymore, no willingness to further involve the social network and a lack of motivation of the social network. However, since Onrust and colleagues had information from only four family members, it is important to examine dropout reasons for this phase as well.

As far as we know, only two studies examined factors that influence dropout rate, both focusing on the first phase of the FGC-process. Sundell (2000) found that families who had more contact with social services, who had more children that were placed out-of-home and who had more serious problems, according to child welfare workers, were more often willing to organize an FGc. Crampton (2003) examined 40 family characteristics to determine which of these affected the willingness of families to try an FGc. Results showed that in families characterized by children with special needs, parental substance abuse, improper supervision, kinship care already identified, parental mental health problems and previous involvement of child welfare, parents were more often willing to organize an FGc.

In the present study, we selected eight demographic-, parent- and family characteristics which, based on previous literature, may be relevant for distinguishing between families who do and do not dropout of the model of FGC. The demographic characteristics were minority status, family situation and education level of parents. Although Crampton (2003) did not find that minority status affects the willingness of families to try an FGc, research on dropout in child welfare treatment in general showed that minority status, as well as divorce and low socioeconomic status, are common characteristics of families who dropout of treatment (Armbruster and Kazdin, 1994, De Haan et al., 2013, Reyno and McGrath, 2006). Since Merkel-Holguin (2005) reported that the model of FGC is assumed to be culturally sensitive and therefore appropriate irrespective of minority status, and Chandler and Giovanucci (2004) suggested FGC to be an appropriate method for helping divorced parents to focus on their children rather than on their conflict, it seems interesting to examine this further.

Second, the importance of two parental characteristics was examined in the present study: empowerment and parental mental health problems in terms of psychiatric problems. Previous research has shown that empowerment at the family level, which is the parents' sense of competence to manage day-to-day situations with their child(ren) at home (Koren, DeChillo, & Friesen, 1992), increases the effectiveness of several parenting programs (Deković et al., 2010, Deković et al., 2012). Because it has been hypothesized that parents' knowledge and improvement in competence are translated into greater action and involvement (Taub, Tighe, & Burchard, 2001), this is thought to result in more FGC completion. With regard to parental mental health problems, Crampton (2003) reported that families where parents had mental-health problems were more likely to complete an FGc than parents without these problems. However, studies on dropout in general found that this characteristic was a factor that causes dropout (Armbruster and Kazdin, 1994, De Haan et al., 2013, Reyno and McGrath, 2006).

Thirdly, social support of the extended family, out-of-home placement and child maltreatment were included as family characteristics that may affect the completion rate of FGC. FGC claims that a lack of social support is not an exclusion criterion (Van Beek & Muntendam, 2011). However, previous research of both Crampton (2003) and Sundell (2000) showed that when families did not have extended networks that were willing to participate, FGC is less likely to be completed. Furthermore, the studies of Crampton (2003) and Sundell (2000) showed that when children were placed out-of-home at the start of the FGC-process, an FGc was more likely to succeed. Crampton and Williams (2000) found no evidence that child maltreatment affected the likelihood of FGc completion.

In sum, the aim of the present study was to identify which families are willing to organize an FGc and which families are most likely to accomplish a conference once they expressed their willingness to organize one. To obtain this goal, we first examined the proportion of families willing to organize an FGc and actually accomplishing a conference. Second, we examined reasons for declining the offer of an FGc and reasons for dropout during the process. Third, we examined whether 1) demographic characteristics, including minority status, family situation and education level of parents, 2) parent characteristics, including empowerment and parental mental health problems and 3) family characteristics, including social support from the extended family, out-of-home placement and child maltreatment, affect the willingness to organize an FGc and the likelihood to actually accomplish a conference. The answers to these questions would help gain better insights in the process of FGC. Moreover, as dropout can be considered a measure of effectiveness, this study adds to growing knowledge on the effectiveness of FGC in child welfare (Dijkstra, Creemers, Asscher, Deković, & Stams, 2016).

Section snippets

Sample and procedure

The present study reports data of a randomized controlled trial to examine the effectiveness of FGC in a child welfare agency in Amsterdam, The Netherlands (Asscher, Dijkstra, Stams, Deković, & Creemers, 2014). The design of the study is approved by the independent Ethical Committee of the Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences of the University of Amsterdam (approval number: 2013-POWL-3308). The target group of child welfare agencies in the Netherlands are families with problems in

Phase 1: willingness to organize an FGc

Of the 229 families who were offered to organize an FGc, 60% (137 families) accepted the offer and started with the preparation phase. The remaining 92 families declined the offer and continued with regular child welfare (i.e., a regular child welfare plan was developed by the child welfare worker and the parents).

The reasons for declining the offer, according to parents and child welfare workers, are listed in Table A.2. An analysis of the reasons for declining the offer to organize an FGc

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to identify which families are willing to organize an FGc and which families are most likely to actually accomplish a conference once they expressed their willingness to organize one. This is relevant for three reasons. First, the FGC-model assumes that all families could benefit from an FGc, whereas several studies show that only a minority of families referred to an FGc were actually maintained in the FGC-process (Crampton, 2003, Sundell and Haeggman, 1999).

Conclusion

The present study aimed to shed light on which families are willing to organize an FGc and which families actually complete the process with a conference. To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies in the field of FGC that specifically focused on dropout in the different phases of FGC and reasons for this dropout. It is important to examine whether the FGC-model is as widely applicable, i.e., suitable for the large variety of families to whom it is currently offered. Given the

Funding

This work was supported by the Dutch organization for Health research and Development (ZonMW), grant number: 70-72900-98-13158.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge Youth Protection Amsterdam Region and surroundings for their full cooperation with this study. In addition, we would like to acknowledge the ‘Eigen Kracht Centrale’, the program bureau organizing FGC, for their cooperation.

References (31)

  • S. Dijkstra et al.

    The effectiveness of family group conferencing in youth care: a meta-analysis

    Child Abuse & Neglect

    (2016)
  • A.M. De Haan et al.

    A meta-analytic review on treatment dropout in child and adolescent outpatient mental health care

    Clinical Psychology Review

    (2013)
  • Van der Put et al.

    Predicting relapse of problematic child-rearing situations

    Children and Youth Services Review

    (2016)
  • P. Armbruster et al.

    Attribution in child therapy

  • J.J. Asscher et al.

    Family group conferencing in youth care: Characteristics of the decision making model, implementation and effectiveness of the Family Group (FG) plans

    BMC Public Health

    (2014)
  • S. Dijkstra et al.

    Family group conferencing in child welfare: A summary

  • G. Burford et al.

    General introduction: Family group conference programming

    Family Group Conferencing: New Directions in Community-Centered Child & Family Practice

    (2000)
  • S.M. Chandler et al.

    Family group conferences: Transforming traditional child welfare policy and practice

    Family Court Review

    (2004)
  • D. Crampton

    Family group decision making in Kent County, Michigan: The family and community compact

    Protecting Children

    (2003)
  • D. Crampton

    Research review: Family group decision-making: A promising practice in need of more programme theory and research

    Child & Family Social Work

    (2007)
  • D. Crampton et al.

    Family group decision making and disproportionality in foster care: A case study

    Child Welfare

    (2007)
  • D. Crampton et al.

    Does the type of child maltreatment matter in family group decision making? Paper presented at the 2000 FGDM roundtable proceedings

    (2000)
  • M. Deković et al.

    Tracing changes in families who participated in the home-start parenting program: Parental sense of competence as mechanism of change

    Prevention Science

    (2010)
  • M. Deković et al.

    Within-intervention change: Mediators of intervention effects during multisystemic therapy

    Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

    (2012)
  • M. Deković et al.

    Bronnen van opvoedingsondersteuning, inventarisatie (BOO) [questionnaire for the measurement of support with respect to child-rearing practices]

    (1996)
  • ☆

    The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

    View full text