Expediting permanent placement from foster care systems: The role of family group decision-making

Wang, Eugene W.; Lambert, Matthew C.; Johnson, Leah E.; Boudreau, Brock; Breidenbach, Rebecca; Baumann, Donald J.

doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.01.015

Cited by 33 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research on the application of FGCs in Public Mental Health care shows that FGCs hold potential in preventing coercive measures in psychiatry [ 12 ]. This corresponds with the findings on the application of FGCs in youth care, where forced residential and foster care are prevented using FGCs [ 38 , 51 ]. FGCs also reduce the risk of recidivism in juvenile crime [ 5 , 9 , 20 ] and are applied in elderly care as a means to reinforce relational autonomy and resilience [ 30 ].…”

Section: Case Examplesupporting

confidence: 88%

Am I My Brother’s Keeper? Moral Dimensions of Informal Caregiving in a Neoliberal Society

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within the current Dutch policy context the role of informal care is revalued. Formal care activities are reduced and family and friends are expected to fill this gap. Yet, there is little research on the moral ambivalences that informal care for loved ones who have severe and ongoing mental health problems entails, especially against the backdrop of neoliberal policies. Giving priority to one’s own life project or caring for a loved one with severe problems is not reconciled easily. Using a case study we illustrate the moral ambivalences that persons may experience when they try to shape their involvement and commitment when a relative is in need. The case comes from a research project which explores whether it is possible to reduce coercive measures in psychiatry by organizing a Family Group Conference. The purpose of the article is to explore what theoretical concepts such as ‘communities of fate’, ‘communities of choice’ and ‘personal communities’ add in understanding how persons shape their involvement and commitment when a family member experiences recurrent psychiatric crises.

show abstract

Section: Case Examplesupporting

confidence: 88%

Am I My Brother’s Keeper? Moral Dimensions of Informal Caregiving in a Neoliberal Society

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some important family decisions including vacation, furniture buying and outside entertainment are found to be decided jointly by couples (Davis and Rigaux, 1974;Qualls, 1987). However, the past decade has seen an increase in interest in children's influence in this area (Flurry and Burns, 2005;NØrgaard et al, 2007;Ebster et al, 2009;Flurry and Veeck, 2009;Gotze et al, 2009;Guneri et al, 2009;Wang et al, 2012). This study seeks to understand the family decision-making process occurring in the father-mother-child triad.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do family members agree on family purchase decision? – an empirical study among families in Hong Kong

Wut

Chou

2012

Int J Consumer Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Family decision making is one of the most important consumer decisions. It is complicated because all family members can be involved in the decision‐making process. The current study examined the impact of perceived buying preferences of individual family member on perceived family buying preferences. A new family decision‐making model with family members’ buying preference is proposed based on resources theory, social learning theory and family system theory. It is found that there is a synergy effect in a family decision‐making process. The synergy effect is expressed as positive correlations between individual family members buying preferences. Quota sampling was adopted to collect primary data in Hong Kong using triadic approach. Managerial implications and future research directions are suggested.

show abstract

“…While we have called for more rigorous evaluation of FGDM, and a process of FGDM development in response to more rigorous evaluation, we would hope that the findings reported here do not contribute to a side‐lining of FGDM. Service users prefer FGDM (Sheets et al, 2009; Walker, 2005). Practitioners who engage with FGDM are also positive about it as they have found it reduces conflict between practitioners and families (Wick, 2014).…”

Section: Authors' Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Family group decision‐making for children at risk of abuse or neglect: A systematic review

McGinn

Best

Wilson

et al. 2020

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Capturing the scale of child maltreatment is difficult, but few would argue that it is anything less than a global problem which can affect victims’ health and well‐being throughout their life. Systems of detection, investigation and intervention for maltreated children are the subject of continued review and debate. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of the formal use of family group decision‐making (FGDM) in terms of child safety, permanence (of child's living situation), child and family well‐being, and client satisfaction with the decision‐making process. Search Methods Both published and unpublished manuscripts were considered eligible for this review. Library staff from Scholarly Information (Brownless Biomedical Library) University of Melbourne, conducted 14 systematic bibliographic searches. Reviewers also checked the reference lists of all relevant articles obtained, and reference lists from previously published reviews. Researchers also hand‐searched 10 relevant journals. Selection Criteria Study samples of children and young people, aged 0–18 years, who have been the subject of a child maltreatment investigation, were eligible for this review. Studies had to have used random assignment to create treatment and control groups; or, parallel cohorts in which groups were assessed at the same point in time. Any form of FGDM, used in the course of a child maltreatment investigation or service, was considered an eligible intervention if it involved: a concerted effort to convene family, extended family, and community members; and professionals; and involved a planned meeting with the intention of working collaboratively to develop a plan for the safety well‐being of children; with a focus on family‐centred decision‐making. Data Collection and Analysis Two review authors independently extracted the necessary data from each study report, using the software application Covidence. Covidence highlighted discrepancies between data extracted by separate reviewers, further analysis was conducted until a consensus was reached on what data were to be included in the review. Two authors also independently conducted analyses of study bias. Main Results Eighteen eligible study reports were found, providing findings from 15 studies, involving 18 study samples. Four were randomised controlled trials (RCTs; N = 941) the remainder employed quasi‐experimental designs with parallel cohorts. Three of the quasi‐experimental studies used prospective evaluations of nonrandomly assigned comparison groups (N = 4,368); the rest analysed pre‐existing survey data, child protection case files or court data (N = 91,786). The total number of children studied was 97,095. The longest postintervention follow‐up period was 3 years. Only four studies were conducted outside the United States; two in Canada and one in Sweden and one in the Netherlands. The review authors judged there to be a moderate or high risk of bias, in most of the bias categories considered. Only one study referenced a study protocol. Eleven of the fi...

show abstract

Expediting permanent placement from foster care systems: The role of family group decision-making

Cited by 33 publications

References 9 publications

Am I My Brother’s Keeper? Moral Dimensions of Informal Caregiving in a Neoliberal Society

Am I My Brother’s Keeper? Moral Dimensions of Informal Caregiving in a Neoliberal Society

Do family members agree on family purchase decision? – an empirical study among families in Hong Kong

Family group decision‐making for children at risk of abuse or neglect: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About