 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
FAMILY GROUP DECISION MAKING MODELS
OUTCOME ACCOUNTABILITY AND PERFORMANCE REVIEW
. . . involves the family in a comprehensive evaluation of their strengths and needs.
The coordinated assessment process is closely linked to the concept of community- based support for families. The coordinated assessment process begins with the family and their kinship support system. As those most familiar with the family’s strengths and needs, these individuals and organizations know the history of the issues endangering the child, the attempts made to resolve the issues in the past, and the extent and limitations of their own strengths and resources. When the family’s resources are put into place first, we are demonstrating our value of the family and its strengths and our acknowledgement that they are the primary experts regarding their family system. The primary utilization of the family and their kinship system allows county departments of social services to tailor their interventions to the individual strengths and needs within each family.
The assessment process must be coordinated among service providers in order to understand what the family needs without duplicating efforts. The basic components required for a comprehensive and effective assessment include:
In order to coordinate the assessment process, agencies must share the assessment information that they have with others who are involved in service delivery. This includes sharing of factual information with members of the family support network on a need-to-know basis.
This section includes information on:
The Community Assessment Team provides interagency collaboration and accountability on behalf of every child served by the child welfare system. The Community Assessment Team reviews individual cases of children, identifies barriers to permanency for these children, and helps to ensure that a safe, permanent home for each child is being pursued actively. To accomplish its goals, the Community Assessment Team involves the family fully in the process prior to the child coming into DSS custody or as soon as the child enters the foster care system. The team is involved with ongoing assessments and planning for as long as the child is in DSS custody or placement responsibility.
The Community Assessment Team approach helps the agency to assure that children achieve permanency. The team focuses on child safety, addressing the factors that pose a risk to the child. The goal of the team is to help children safely remain in their own homes or to locate placement with a relative or a home where it is safe for the child to stay. If the child is in out of home placement, the focus is to assist in safely returning the child home, locating a safe, permanent placement with a relative or another approved person or to be adopted by the foster parent when this is in the best interest of the child and family.
The sharing of information in Community Assessment Team meetings is allowable under State laws regulating the disclosure of confidential information.3 However, a confidentiality statement must be signed by all participants in the meeting to ensure that shared confidential information will not be disclosed outside of the meeting.
Community Assessment Team meetings are used for case planning and the development or review of all sections of the appropriate Family Services Agreement.
Community Assessment Teams can use family group decision making techniques to involve the family actively and to place the family at the center of decision making in team meetings. There are two models of family group decision making that are explained in detail in the Yellow Pages.
Community Assessment Teams should be individually designed by each county to meet that community’s needs. While there are various ways to conduct a Community Assessment Team process, one North Carolina County DSS has shared the model for Community Assessment Teams that has been developed in their community as an example in this manual. 4 That model is as follows:
Families participate in a single, coordinated assessment process that comprehensively evaluates strengths and needs. Families are encouraged to invite extended family members, neighbors, friends, clergy or anyone else to Community Assessment Team meetings. Agencies, schools, and other systems involved with the family are invited to participate in Community Assessment Team meetings.
This model is used to empower the family and community as real partners in assessment and case planning. Their involvement improves the system’s capacity to understand and maximize the benefits of differences in perspectives. The Community Assessment Team model provides a greater strengths-based perspective for families involved with human service agencies and particularly those families involved with the children’s services system.
A. Information Sharing
This phase starts with an introduction of the parties present and an explanation of the assessment process. Family strengths are identified. The reasons for DSS involvement are outlined. If there is a CPS substantiation, the allegations and findings are relayed to the family. The family will have been informed previously of the findings of a CPS investigative assessment. However, it is important to clarify the issues that warrant DSS involvement at the start of the Community Assessment Team meeting.
B. Group Discussion
Family and agencies discuss strengths, issues, and services that need to be in place and level of DSS/Court intervention. The family and agencies arrive at a final decision and develop a formalized, written plan that is signed by the family and agency representatives. The family is asked if the plan is realistic, fair, and manageable. The DSS must determine if all safety issues have been appropriately addressed.
The case of every child in the custody or placement responsibility of a County Department of Social Services must be reviewed periodically by a Permanency Planning Action Team. (Refer to Part IX, Case Reviews, for more information about the Permanency Planning Action Team.)
Generally, the size and scope of a Community Assessment Team is broader than a Permanency Planning Action Team. For example, Community Assessment Teams often convene prior to a child coming into agency custody, while reviews by Permanency Planning Action Teams are required only for children in custody. Furthermore, Community Assessment Teams often include more service providers, family and kin, and community members than the minimum required participants for the Permanency Planning Action Team.
County Departments of Social Services may use the Community Assessment Team in meeting the case review requirements outlined in 1201, Case Reviews. In fact, if a Community Assessment Team has been formed, it is usually desirable to use that team for case reviews. Participation in the Community Assessment Team, when convened for a legally required case review purposes, must meet the legal requirements regarding time frames and participants. In addition, the appropriate Family Services Agreement forms must be completed at the time of the review (In Home Family Services Agreement, Out of Home Family Services Agreement, Family Services Agreement Review and Transitional Living Plan
Family group decision-making is a relatively new approach to working with families involved in the child welfare system. This model provides families and their support network with the opportunity to make decisions and plan for the children. By being involved in protective planning, the parents become part of a collaborative -- rather than adversarial -- relationship with the agency. While the DSS maintains veto power over any plan, agencies in other states that have experience with these models have found that a majority of family-developed plans can be approved by the agency.
Family group decision making can be used in the Community Assessment Team, as well as the Permanency Planning Action Team setting.
The model is a solution-based approach to resolving problems. This model draws on the strengths and resources of the extended family, of the system and of other community agencies and individuals involved in the child’s life. The main goal of this model is to strengthen individual families. This in turn leads to long-term solutions to family problems and safety for children.
The foundation of this model is based on a number of values and beliefs. Primary among them is the belief that families have strengths and can change. These strengths are what ultimately resolve issues of concern. Strengths are discovered through listening, noticing, and paying attention to people. They are enhanced when they are acknowledged and encouraged. People gain a sense of hope when they are heard. They are also more inclined to listen to others. Whereas advice can seem disrespectful, listening and suggesting options provide choices. Choices empower people.5
There are two basic models of family group decision-making: Family Group Conferencing and Family Unity Meetings. There are also numerous variations in practice with these models and a variety of names assigned to the process. Family Group Conferences and Family Unity Meetings have many similar aspects. They diverge somewhat in the actual design of the conferences or meetings. The basics of these two models are outlined here, and the term “family group decision-making” will be used in most cases to refer to both models for the sake of simplicity.
The Family Group Conference Model was established in New Zealand through legislation in 1989. The Family Unity Meeting Model was developed in 1990 in Oregon.6 Both models have been adapted and implemented in many communities in the United States and internationally. The interest in developing and implementing these models was born out of several concerns about trends in the child welfare system, including:
Family group decision-making also supports kinship care, strengths-based, family-centered practice, and the creation of partnerships with the family and community. Family group decision-making is a demonstrated method to improve the agency’s provision of culturally competent services within the child’s own community.
Families benefit from the family group decision-making process in that it can strengthen families by engaging their commitment and responsibility to protect and provide permanence for their children. The process tends to counter the isolation experienced by families who are involved with the child welfare system. Families’ investment in, and ownership of, decisions are increased. The process recognizes that families have the most information about themselves to make well-informed decisions. It recognizes that individuals can find security and a sense of belonging within their own families, and it encourages families to form important links with their communities. Families have reported that the family group decision-making process has enhanced their feelings of being respected and understood within the context of their culture and traditions.
Child welfare agencies and communities benefit from family group decision-making. There is increased community ownership of child protection and permanence through collaboration and cooperation between the family and the agency and among agencies. The partnership between professionals and the family in decision-making can decrease the professionals’ burden and responsibility, balances power, and increases the family’s sense of control and commitment to solutions. Better informed decisions result when the family’s expertise about their strengths and needs are valued.
Families can be referred for family group decision-making:
Agencies interested in adopting this model should design a protocol for the referral process that identifies:
It is important that the person who will facilitate the meeting or conference is someone who can remain impartial and who does not have direct responsibility for the case.
Preparation and planning for the family group decision-making meeting is crucial to the success of the meeting and its outcomes. Care must be taken to balance the sense of urgency to meet with the need to assure broad family representation. The person identified to coordinate the process has a great deal of responsibility and will necessarily have to invest time in meeting with identified participants to prepare them.
Because of the time required to prepare for a meeting, interim plans may be required to assure that the child is in a safe environment. If the child can be maintained safely in the home with family supervision and support, this is preferable to out-of-home interim placement. If interim placement is needed, suitable relatives known to the child should be given first consideration.
The next step in preparation is to identify the participants to be invited to the meeting. “Family” includes all those identified by the client as family: the nuclear and extended family, kinship networks, friends and natural community supports. Community supports may include landlords, neighbors, clergy, and others. Representatives from agencies involved with the family and with knowledge of the issues also need to be invited. Agency representatives not only include the child welfare agency, but also mental health professionals, substance abuse treatment staff, teachers, school workers, health professionals, in-home aides, Guardians ad Litem, attorneys, and any other relevant persons involved with the family.
Although the participation of professionals in the meeting is critically important, the need for a broad base of family participants is a key to the success of the meeting and its outcomes. It is good practice to assure that there are more family representatives at the meeting than professionals. Children should also be included when appropriate for age, developmental, and emotional considerations. No child victim should be at the meeting without an adult support person. The child should help in identifying their support person, and this person should be prepared to accompany the child out of the meeting if needed. The coordinator should work with the child and family in identifying potential participants who can protect and care for the child. Other roles include supervising the implementation of plans, supporting the family in caring for the child, and maintaining contact with the child and family. Perpetrators should be included in the meeting whenever possible, as they must be involved in constructively determining solutions and in implementation of plans.
The meeting coordinator should contact each meeting participant, preferably face-to-face. When a face-to-face contact is not possible, telephone contact is needed. The process for family group decision-making must be described in detail, so that each participant (family members and professionals) understands their role before, during, and after the meeting. The coordinator should work with each family participant around issues of attending the meeting. In many places, the convening agency pays for transportation so that family members can attend. If a family member cannot attend the meeting, they should be encouraged to write a statement that addresses their issues, that offers their ideas for solutions, and that can be read at the meeting. The coordinator should organize the meeting logistics and communicate them to all participants. Logistics include the time, date, and place for the meeting, as well as supplies, refreshments, seating arrangements, interpreters, transportation arrangements and any needed security arrangements. The time and place of the meeting should be carefully planned to be most convenient for family members, rather than the convenience of professionals. It is recommended that the meeting be held in a neutral setting rather than at the child welfare agency. Providing refreshments for the meeting can be a very positive setting of the atmosphere and is a natural context for families who come together to discuss family issues.
1. Introduction -- The conference should begin in the ways that are consistent with the family’s culture and traditions. There may be a respected family member or other community member, such as a spiritual leader, that greets participants as they arrive. In many traditions, some sort of blessing or statement may be appropriate to opening a family meeting. The coordinator should introduce all participants to the group and explain their roles. The coordinator should clarify again the family group conference process, its purpose, and the goals of the conference.
2. Information sharing -- The social worker responsible for the case should present the facts of the child’s case, along with the issues and concerns, to the conference participants. The social worker’s presentation should be straightforward and respectful. Other professionals involved with the case then need to share any relevant information and concerns. Time should be allotted for the family to ask any questions that they have of the professionals. In the Family Group Conference Model, professionals do not share their opinions or make recommendations to the family.
3. The Family Meeting -- At this stage, the professionals and non-family support members leave the “family” (still defined broadly) alone in private to discuss the case. This private family meeting is at the heart of the family group conference model. It is believed that when the professionals remain in the room, the discussion among the family is hindered. Professionals tend to assume their traditional role of directing the decision-making. The family is charged with the task of developing a plan that will assure permanence for the child and that will protect the child from future harm. This plan may specify a particular placement for the child, and should include plans for follow-up and monitoring of the plan.
4. The Decision - When the family has reached a decision, the social worker, other professionals and non-family members return to the meeting, and the family presents and explains their plan. Decisions should be made ahead of the meeting as to who may have veto power over all or part of the family’s plan, and under what circumstances. Certainly, the social worker with responsibility for the child can veto the plan. Others who may be designated with veto power may include lawyers, the Guardian ad Litem, the parents, and the coordinator. Experience with this model has shown that the majority of plans developed by the family are acceptable and few vetoes are required. Depending on the legal status of the case, the plan may need to be presented to the Court for judicial approval.
The Family Unity Meeting Model differs from the Family Group Conference Model in that it allows for the parents to veto the participation of any family member. This provision gives the parents much more control over who can participate in the meeting and with whom information is shared. Like the Family Group Conference Model, the Family Unity Meeting Model does discourage the exclusion of family members, but the Family Group Conference Model does not give the parents veto power over family member participation. Additionally, the Family Unity Meeting Model allows for the professionals and other non-family members to be present during the family discussion when decisions are made and the plan is developed. A facilitator is used throughout the process.
The stages of the Family Unity Meeting Model are as follows:
No matter the model, the plan is written and distributed to the family members and professionals involved with the case. The plan should designate what services and supports will be provided, by whom, and when. A plan for monitoring the progress needs to be in place. In some cases, it may be necessary to schedule a follow-up meeting for case review.
In most cases, the use of family group decision-making results in agreement of all parties to the plan. In those few cases where the family and the professionals cannot come to agreement, the dissenting views should be presented to the Court for a decision. Court review and sanction of the plan is necessary if the child is already in DSS custody or placement responsibility.
When considering implementation of a family group decision-making model, the agency should evaluate the different models and design an approach that will fit best in that county and community. Community involvement is critical to successful implementation. Therefore, community members and professionals from a cross-section of agencies should be involved in the design to assure commitment to the process. Guidelines and explicit roles of all professionals involved need to be developed. Of particular importance in the design is the decision on whether to allow for a private family conference or to maintain the presence of the professionals throughout the meeting.
Before implementing family group decision-making into practice, facilitators and coordinators need to be identified and trained. Policy issues need to be addressed regarding participant involvement, referral processes, reimbursement for family costs, and participant and plan veto procedures. Case reviews and monitoring processes need to be addressed in policy. Finally, consideration is needed on how legal mandates will be maintained. It is advisable to discuss policies and practice designs with the agency attorney.
For many years, North Carolina has required that counties report data into the statewide Services Information Systems(SIS). Some of this information has been specific to Child Protective Services (Central Registry), and Child Placement and Adoption (Child Placement and Payment System). The SIS is used to generate statistical reports and is available to conduct research. One reason that the State Division of Social Services and the County Departments of Social Services have not used data extensively is the recognized poor quality of much of the data included in the system. For county staff, information that is not used is often regarded as unimportant and, unfortunately, accuracy has not always been stressed. The Division, with cooperation from local Departments of Social Services, will work to improve the integrity of the data in its automated systems.
North Carolina is moving toward a unified, performance-based information management system that has great potential in generating accurate county-specific reports that will:
The Division of Social Services is now producing two new reports:
Making effective use of information begins with the identification of the outcomes we desired for children and families and the strategies for measuring them. It is important to realize that data must be interpreted at the local level by people representing a wide range of community interests and differing levels of expertise in interpreting data. Many communities are engaged in different initiatives that target the same population and have many of the same outcomes. Effective use of information involves organizing and sharing data in ways that add value to the ongoing evaluation of system performance at the local level. Recognizing that the entire community is responsible for the welfare of children, County Departments of Social Services should promote the practice of sharing data for community self-monitoring, self evaluation, and modification of agency practice and goal setting.
The Division of Social Services conducts biennial reviews of agency performance based on the Federal Child and Family Services Review process and instruments. There is an increasing interest in agency accreditation. This process requires storage and interpretation of accurate information that will measure outcomes and performance.
3 N.C.G.S. 7B-2901(c)
4 Cleveland County Department of Social Services
5 California IV-E Waiver Demonstration Project, 1997. Patric B. Ashby, Chief, Foster Care Branch, Sacramento, California.
6 For a more thorough discussion of these two models and experiences from the agency and family perspective, see Lisa Merkel-Holquin’s article “Putting Families Back into the Child Protection Partnership: Family Group Decision Making” in Protecting Children Volume 12, No. 3 (1996), pp. 4-7. This issue of Protecting Children has several relevant articles.
|
For questions or clarification on any of the policy contained in these manuals, please contact your local county office. |
| |||||||||||||