A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effectiveness of Family Group Conferencing in Child Welfare: Effectiveness, Moderators, and Level of FGC Completion

Abstract

The present study examined the effectiveness of Family Group Conferencing (FGC) in child welfare. Effects were operationalized in terms of child safety (child maltreatment, supervision order, and out-of-home placement), number of professional services used, parental empowerment, and social support in a 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up. Furthermore, the influence of family characteristics and the level of FGC completion were examined. A total of 328 families were included, randomly assigned to an experimental group (n ¼ 229) and a care as usual (CAU) group (n ¼ 99). FGC was equally effective as CAU in improving child safety but resulted in more out-of-home placements. Furthermore, FGC resulted in a longer duration of child welfare involvement, a marginally higher number of professional services used, and increased parental empowerment and social support. Family characteristics did not moderate the results. Level of FGC completion was in general low. Higher levels of completion were related to a larger social network, a higher number of professional services used, and, marginally, less parental empowerment. In conclusion, although some beneficial results marginally support the use of FGC, it is the question whether these effects outweigh FGC costs, a longer duration of child welfare involvement and a higher number of professional services used.

Cost-effectiveness of Family Group Conferencing in child welfare: a controlled study

“…It seems that families that were offered FGC but refused did benefit more from the FGC approach, compared to CAU, than families who dropped out in the preparation phase or completed all phases. This finding seems in line with the results in an earlier study, in which was found that lower program fidelity (resulting from drop out between the referral and conference phase), was related to higher scores on empowerment [ 10 ]. Apparently, when families decided to refuse FGC and to make a care plan with the child welfare worker, this decision resulted in larger effects and sometimes lower costs compared to CAU than when families completed all phases of FGC.…”

“…With respect to the first aim of the study, we found that six as well as 12 months after a care plan was made, FGC was equally effective as CAU in reducing child maltreatment, which is in line with previous research [ 7 , 8 , 10 ]. Our findings at six and 12 months suggest that effects of FGC in terms of child safety are stable over time.…”

“…Data were collected from January 2014 until October 2016 by means of self-report questionnaires and by a risk assessment tool at five measurement occasions: after referral to the child welfare agency (pre-test; T1) and one (T2), three (T3), six (T4) and 12 months (T5) after a care plan had been made. More details about the design of the study, inclusion and procedure are published elsewhere [ 10 , 12 ].…”

“…In terms of the secondary outcome measures, which are targeted in interventions to reduce child maltreatment and out-of-home placement, there is empirical evidence showing that FGC can have a positive effect on empowerment and social support. For instance, Sheets and colleagues [ 9 ] found that families and relatives felt more empowered directly after a Family Group Decision Making conference (FGDM; a variation on FGC) compared to families that did not organize an FGDM and Dijkstra and colleagues [ 10 ] found that 6 months after FGC, parents felt more empowered than parents who received care as usual (CAU). In the same effect study, the authors found that 1 month after a care plan was made, FGC was more effective than CAU in increasing the number of social support sources.…”

“…The aim of the present study was, therefore, to examine effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FGC at 6 and 12 months after FGC. Based on a previous effect study [ 10 ], we selected child maltreatment as indicator of the primary outcome child safety and empowerment and social support as secondary outcomes. Furthermore, previous findings point towards differential effects for different levels of completion of FGC.…”