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

BMC Public Health

Hanneke E Creemers²  Maja Deković¹  Geert Jan JM Stams²  Sharon Dijkstra²  Jessica J Asscher² 

[1] Child and Adolescent Studies, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands;Forensic Child and Youth Care Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, 1018 VZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands

关键词: Professional help;    Social network;    Perceived control;    Supervision order;    Child safety;    Family Group Conferencing;    Randomized controlled trial;    Effectiveness;   

Others  :  1145337
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-154

 received in 2014-02-04, accepted in 2014-02-06,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The model of Family group-conferencing (FG-c) for decision making in child welfare has rapidly spread over the world during the past decades. Its popularity is likely to be caused by its philosophy, emphasizing participation and autonomy of families, rather than based on positive research outcomes. Conclusive evidence regarding the (cost) effectiveness of FG-c is not yet available. The aim of this protocol is to describe the design of a study to evaluate the (cost) effectiveness of FG-c as compared to Treatment as Usual.

Method/Design

The effectiveness of FG-c will be examined by means of a Randomized Controlled Trial. A multi-informant approach will be used to assess child safety as the primary outcome, and commitment of the social network, perceived control/ empowerment; family functioning and use of professional care as secondary outcomes. Implementation of FG-c, characteristics of family manager and family will be examined as moderators of effectiveness.

Discussion

Studying the effectiveness of Fg-c is crucial now the method is being implemented all over the world as a decision making model in child and youth care. Policy makers should be informed whether the ideals of participation in society and the right for self-determination indeed result in more effective care plans, and the money spent on FG-c is warranted.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Register number NTR4320. The design of this 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). This study is financially supported by a grant from ZonMw, The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, grant number: 70-72900-98-13158.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Asscher et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Frost N, Abram F, Burgess H: Family group conferences: evidence, outcomes and future research. Child Fam Soc Work 2012. in press advance access December 2012 doi:10.1111/cfs.12049
• [2]Van BF: Bestuursverslag 2012. Stichting Eigen Kracht centrale. http://www.eigen-kracht.nl/sites/default/files/2012_Bestuursverslag_EKC_web.pdf webcite
• [3]Maluccio AN, Ainsworth F, Thoburn J: Child Welfare Outcome Research in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. Washington, DC: CWLA Press; 2000.
• [4]Oosterkamp-Swajcer EM, De Swart JJW: Op Eigen Kracht Vooruit. Een onderzoek naar de resultaten van Eigen Kracht-conferenties in Nederland. Zwolle: Saxion; 2012.
• [5]Schuurman M: Opbrengsten en effecten van Eigen Kracht-conferenties. Jeugdbeleid 2011, 4:227-232.
• [6]Schuurman M, Mulder C: Eigen Kracht-Conferenties bij Gezinnen in de Regio Amsterdam. Wat Levert het op?. Nieuwegein: Kalliope Consult; 2011.
• [7]Jagtenberg R, van Hulst B, de Roo A: Maatschappelijke Opbrengsten van Eigen Kracht-Conferenties in het Kader van Geïndiceerde Jeugdzorg Trajecten met een Toespitsing op Multi-Probleemgezinnen. Rotterdam/Delft: Technische universiteit Delft, IPSE-studies, Innovatie en Publieke Sector Efficiënte Studies en Mediation Research; 2011.
• [8]WESP: ‘Ieder Draagt Zijn Steentje bij’. Resultaten Eigen Kracht-Conferenties Pilot Noord-Holland. Sassenheim: WESP; 2012.
• [9]Wijnen-Lunenbug P, Van Beek F, Bijl B, Gramber P, Slot W: De Familie aan zet. De Uitkomsten van Eigen Kracht-Conferenties in de Jeugdbescherming met Betrekking tot Veiligheid, Sociale Cohesie en Regie. Duivendrecht: Pi Research/ WESP/Vrije Universiteit; 2008.
• [10]Titcomb A, Lecroy C: Outcomes of Arizona’s family group decision making program. Prot child 2005, 19:47-53.
• [11]Burford G, Connolly M, Morris K, Pennell J: Introduction, principles, and processes. Part of a larger review of family group conferencing research. http://www.eigen-kracht.nl webcite
• [12]Lorentzen BL: Effects of Family Group Decision Making in a Voluntary Family Maintenance Program. 2009. [Dissertation Abstracts International PhD Thesis] http://www.americanhumane.org/children/programs/family-group-decision-making/bibliographies/research-and-evaluation/effects-of-family-group.html webcite
• [13]Sundell K, Vinnerljung B: Outcomes of family group conferencing in Sweden, A 3-year follow-up. Child Abuse Negl 2004, 28:267-287.
• [14]Berzin SC, Cohen E, Thomas K, Dawson W: Does family group decision making affect child welfare outcomes? Findings from a randomized control study. Child Welfare 2008, 87:35-54.
• [15]Shlonsky A, Schumaker K, Cook C, Crampton D, Saini M, Backe-Hansen E, Kowalski K: Family Group Decision Making for Children at Risk of Abuse and Neglect [Abstract]. 2009. [Campbell Collaboration Social Welfare Group, Research Protocol]
• [16]Huntsman L: Family Group Conferencing in a Child Welfare Context. Ashfield: Centre for Parenting & Research; 2006.
• [17]Gomby DS, Culross P, Behrman R: Home visiting: recent program evaluations - analysis and recommendations. Future Child 1999, 9:4-26.
• [18]Farrell AD, Meyer AL, Kung EM, Sullivan TN: Development and evaluation of school-based violence prevention programs. J Clin Child Psychol 2001, 30:207-220.
• [19]Kraemer HC, Wilson GT, Fairburn CG, Agras WS: Mediators and moderators of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2002, 59:877-883.
• [20]Dawson McClure SR, Sandler IN, Wolchik SA, Millsap RE: Risk as a moderator of the effects of prevention programs for children from divorced families: a six-year longitudinal study. J Abnorm Child Psychol 2004, 32:175-190.
• [21]Ten Berge IJ: Instrumenten Voor Risicotaxatie in Situaties van (Vermoedelijke) Kindermishandeling. Utrecht: Netherlands Jeugdinstituut; 2008.
• [22]Ondersma SJ, Chaffin MJ, Mullins SM, LeBreton JM: Brief form of the child abuse potential inventory: development and validation. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol 2005, 34:301-311.
• [23]Milner JS, Gold RG, Ayoub C, Jacewitz MM: Predictive validity of the child abuse potential inventory. J Consult Clin Psychol 1984, 52:879-884. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.52.5.879
• [24]Grietens H, De Haene L, Uyttebroek K: Cross-cultural validation of the child abuse potential inventory in Belgium (Flanders): relations with demographic characteristics and parenting problems. J Fam Violence 2007, 22:223-229.
• [25]Dekovic M, Groenendaal JHA, Gerrits LAW: Opvoederkenmerken. In Opvoeden in Nederland. Edited by Rispens J, Hermanns JMA, Meeus WHJ. Assen: Van Gorcum; 1996:70-94.
• [26]Cohen S, Mermelstein R, Kamarck T, Hoberman HM: Measuring the functional components of social support. In Social Support: Theory, Research, and Applications. Edited by Sarason IG, Sarason BR. The Hague Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff; 1985.
• [27]Koren PE, DeChillo N, Friesen BJ: Measuring empowerment in families whose children have emotional disabilities: a brief questionnaire. Rehabil Psychol 1992, 37:305-321.
• [28]De Brock AAJL, Vermulst AA, Gerris JRM, Abidin RR: NOSIK. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger; 1992.
• [29]Epstein NB, Baldwin LM, Bishop DS: The McMaster family assessment device. J Marital Fam Ther 1983, 9:171-180.
• [30]Gagné M: The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motiv Emot 2003, 27:199-223.
• [31]Harbers A: Psychologische Basisbehoeften, Motivatie en de rol van een Verstandelijke Beperking. VU, Amsterdam: Ma Thesis; 2013.
• [32]Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S: The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess 1985, 49:71-75.
• [33]Hakkart-van Roijen L, Van Straten A, Donmker M, Tiemens B: Handleiding Trimbos/iMTA Questionaire for Costs Associated with Mental Illness (TiC-P). Rotterdam: Instituut voor Medical Technological Assessment; Erasmus MC; 2010.
• [34]Jansen DEMC, Vermeulen K, Schuurman A, Luinge A, Knorth E, Buskens E, Reijneveld SA: Cost-effectiveness of Multisystemic Therapy for adolescents with antisocial behaviour: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial. Biomed Central 2013, 13:369-375. BioMed Central Full Text
• [35]Barnoski R: Assessing Risk for re-Offense: Validating the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy; 2004.
• [36]Chorpita BF, Reise SP, Weisz JR, Grubbs K, Becker KD, Krull J: Evaluation of the brief problem checklist: child and caregiver interviews to measure clinical progress. J Consult Clin Psychol 2010, 78:526-536.
• [37]Graham JW: Missing data analysis: making it work in the real world. Annu Rev Psychol 2009, 60:549-576.
• [38]Rausch JR, Maxwell SE, Kelley K: Analytic methods for questions pertaining to a randomized pretest, posttest, follow-up design. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol 2003, 32:467-486.
• [39]Asscher JJ, Deković M, van der Laan P, Prins P: Implementing randomized experiments in criminal justice settings: an evaluation of multisystemic therapy (MST) in The Netherlands. J Exp Criminol 2007, 3:113-129.