Family Group Decision Making
Family Group Decision Making (FGDM) is a collaborative decision-making process designed to support families with children ages 0–17 who are involved in the child welfare system. FGDM uses a family group meeting to create and implement a child safety and care plan. FGDM seeks to convene an extended family group consisting of parents, primary caregivers, individuals with kinship and other connections to the child or parent, the child whenever possible, and service providers with family consent to attend.
FGDM uses a four-phase process involving (1) program referral, (2) preparation for the meeting, (3) the meeting itself, and (4) the implementation of the plan. First, in the referral phase, child welfare agency staff and an FGDM coordinator who is not involved in the case reach out to the parents or primary caregivers and help the family decide if they would like to participate in FGDM.
Second, in the preparation phase, the coordinator meets with the referring worker to understand the child welfare agency’s concerns before identifying and inviting an extended family group to participate in a meeting. The coordinator also asks the family to identify service providers they would like to invite to the meeting, such as their attorneys or mental health providers.
Third, during the meeting phase, the group convenes to develop a plan to support the child. The meeting begins with introductions and a discussion of meeting goals. Next, child welfare agency staff share the specific child safety concerns that the plan must address. The family group then meets privately to create a concrete plan that draws on the family’s values and natural support system. Depending on the family’s needs, this plan might include interventions for parental mental health or substance use, or psychological, educational, or behavioral interventions. Once formulated, the family group, coordinator, and child welfare agency staff discuss the family’s plan and reach consensus on a final written plan.
Fourth, in the implementation phase, child welfare agency staff and service providers support the family group in implementing the plan by providing resources and services. The family group and child welfare agency staff may also hold follow-up meetings to review progress and adapt the plan as needed.
FGDM does not currently meet criteria to receive a rating because no studies of the program achieved a rating of moderate or high on design and execution.
Date Last Reviewed (Handbook Version 2.0): Jul 2025
Date Program or Service Description Last Updated: Jul 2025
Date Originally Reviewed (Handbook Version 2.0): Jul 2025
Sources
The following sources informed the program or service description, target population, and program or service delivery and implementation information: the program or service manual, the program or service developer’s website, and the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare.
This information does not necessarily represent the views of the program or service developers. For more information on how this program or service was reviewed, download the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 2.0
Target Population
FGDM is designed to serve families with children ages 0–17 who are involved in the child welfare system.
Dosage
The referral phase of FGDM does not have a set duration or frequency, though the referring child welfare agency worker and coordinator move through any formal referral processes required by the child welfare agency as quickly as possible.
The timing and frequency of contact during the preparation phase is flexible and is designed to ensure the coordinator has sufficient time and resources to identify, contact, and prepare a broad family group. When an immediate decision related to the child’s safety or placement is needed, the coordinator will facilitate a rapid family meeting within 24–72 hours of referral as part of the preparation process. In these instances, the coordinator will still work to convene subsequent meetings with the broader family group following the initial rapid family meeting.
The family group meeting is designed to allow as much time as needed for private family planning.
The family’s needs determine the quantity, duration, and frequency of services during the implementation phase. The family and the child welfare agency staff may decide to convene additional family group meetings. Implementation continues until the child welfare agency is no longer statutorily required to provide services and the family’s case is closed.
Location/Delivery Setting
Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings
The coordinator typically holds in-person meetings or phone calls with family group members during the referral and preparation phases. FGDM meetings are typically held in-person at a location chosen by the family group, such as a library, community center, place of worship, or school setting. Some family group members may join the meeting via video conferencing. Providers involved in the implementation phase can deliver resources and services in a variety of settings.
Education, Certifications and Training
The coordinator should have relevant post-secondary education, work, or life experience as well as knowledge to effectively navigate the child welfare system, skills in building relationships, trust, and consensus, and awareness of and sensitivity to culture and power dynamics. Whenever possible, family groups are matched with a coordinator who shares their cultural background and speaks their language.
FGDM training involves a competency-based classroom training delivered over 3–4 days for coordinators, child welfare agency staff, and any other service providers who participate in the FGDM process. Communities implementing FGDM may use coaches to support new coordinators and implement group supervision and peer networks to encourage continuous learning and improvement. Communities may elect to offer specialized training, such as training on delivering FGDM with families experiencing domestic violence, substance use disorders, and mental health disorders.
Program or Service Documentation
Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review
There are two manuals that can be used to implement FGDM:
- National Center on Family Group Decision Making & FGDM Guidelines Committee. (2010). Guidelines for Family Group Decision Making in child welfare. American Humane Association.
- Burford, G., Pennell, J., & MacLeod, S. (1995). Manual for coordinators and communities: The organization and practice of Family Group Decision Making (revised). Memorial University of Newfoundland School of Social Work.
Available languages
Both FGDM manuals are available in English.
Other FGDM materials are available in English, French, Inukitut, and Spanish.
Other supporting materials
FGDM in Child Welfare: Purpose, Values and Processes
For More Information
Phone: (303) 669-2600
Email: lisa.merkel-holguin@cuanschutz.edu
Note: The details on Dosage; Location; Education, Certifications, and Training; Other Supporting Materials; and For More Information sections above are provided to website users for informational purposes only. This information is not exhaustive and may be subject to change.
| Results of Search and Review | Number of Studies Identified and Reviewed for Family Group Decision Making |
|---|---|
| Identified in Search | 53 |
| Eligible for Review | 9 |
| Rated High | 0 |
| Rated Moderate | 0 |
| Rated Low | 9 |
| Reviewed Only for Risk of Harm | 0 |
Studies Rated Low
Study 15171Crampton, D. (2003). Family Group Decision Making in Kenty County, Michigan: The family and community compact. Protecting Children, 18, 81-83. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=56349bb4-6830-3714-9e72-762b021d52a9
Crampton, D., & Jackson, W. L. (2006). Family Group Decision Making and disproportionality in foster care: A case study. Child Welfare, 86(3), 51-69. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17722681/
This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.Study 15172
Cunning, S., & Bartlett, D. (2006). Family Group Conferencing: Assessing the long-term effectiveness of an alternative approach in child protection. Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare. https://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/Final_Report_Family_Grp_Conferencing_March_2007.pdf
This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.Study 15211
Sundell, K., & Vinnerljung, B. (2004). Outcomes of Family Group Conferencing in Sweden: A 3-year follow-up. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(3), 267-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.09.018
This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.Study 15162
Asscher, J. J., Dijkstra, S., Stams, G. J. J. M., Dekovic, M., & Creemers, H. E. (2014). Family Group Conferencing in youth care: Characteristics of the decision making model, implementation and effectiveness of the Family Group (FG) plans. BMC Public Health, 14, Article 154. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-154
Dijkstra, S., Creemers, H. E., Asscher, J. J., Dekovic, M., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2017). Family Group Conferencing in Dutch child welfare: Which families are most likely to organize a family group conference? Children & Youth Services Review, 83, 255-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.11.007
Dijkstra, S., Creemers, H. E., van Steensel, F. J. A., Dekovic, M., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Asscher, J. J. (2018). Cost-effectiveness of Family Group Conferencing in child welfare: A controlled study. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 848. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5770-5
Dijkstra, S., Asscher, J. J., Dekovic, M., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Creemers, H. E. (2019). A randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of Family Group Conferencing in child welfare: Effectiveness, moderators, and level of FGC completion. Child Maltreatment, 24(2), 137-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559518808221
This study received a low rating because none of the target outcomes met measurement standards.Study 15207
Sen, R., & Webb, C. (2019). Exploring the declining rates of state social work intervention in an English local authority using Family Group Conferences. Children & Youth Services Review, 106, Article 104458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104458
Mason, P., Ferguson, H., Morris, K., Munton, T., & Sen, R. (2017). Leeds Family Valued Evaluation Report. UK Department for Education. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/625222/Leeds_Family_Valued_-_Evaluation_report.pdf
This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.Study 15168
Burford, G. & Pennell, J. (1998). Family Group Decision Making: After the conference - progress in resolving violence and promoting well-being. [Outcome Report: Volume I]. Memorial University of Newfoundland School of Social Work. https://chass.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2021/09/OR_v1_pt1_Sting_09232021.pdf
Burford, G. (1999). Letting the family speak about violence: research findings on family group conference use in domestic violence. Child Care in Practice, 5(4), 350-360. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279908415540
Pennell, J. & Burford, G., (2000). Family Group Decision Making: Protecting children and women. [Implementation Report: Volume 1]. Child Welfare, 79(2), 131-158. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45400209
Pennell, J. & Burford, G. (1995). Family Group Decision Making: New roles for 'old' partners in resolving family violence. [Implementation Report: Volume I]. Memorial University of Newfoundland School of Social Work. https://chass.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2021/09/IR_vol1_combined_Sting_06102021.pdf
This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.Study 15178
Harder + Company Community Research. (2014). YMCA of San Diego County Families United Family Group Conferencing: Project Summary and Findings. US Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau.
YMCA of San Diego County. (2014). Site visit report: YMCA Families United Family Group Conferencing program. US Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau.
James Bell Associates, Inc. (2015). Family Connection Discretionary Grants: 2011-funded grantees cross-site evaluation report. https://www.jbassoc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Family-Group-Decision-Making-Evaluation-2011.pdf
James Bell Associates, Inc. (2015). Family Connection Discretionary Grants: 2011-funded grantees cross-site evaluation report executive summary. https://www.jbassoc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Executive-Summary-Family-Group-Decision-Making-Evaluation-2011.pdf
This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.Study 15203
Onrust, S. A., Romijn, G., & de Beer, Y. (2015). Family Group Conferences within the integrated care system for youth people with ID: A controlled study of effects and costs. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1), Article 392. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-1062-2
This study received a low rating because none of the target outcomes met measurement standards.Study 15217
Titcomb, A., & LeCroy, C. (2005). Outcomes of Arizona's Family Group Decision Making program. Protecting Children, 19, 47-53.
LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. (2001). Family Group Decision Making: Year 1 Annual Evaluation Report. Tucson, AZ: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc.
LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. (2002). Family Group Decision Making: Year 2 Annual Evaluation Report. Tucson, AZ: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc.
LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. (2003). Family Group Decision Making: Third Annual Evaluation Report. Tucson, AZ: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc.
This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.Studies Not Eligible for Review
Study 15160
American Humane. (2010). Family Group Decision Making: A solution to racial disproportionality and disparities in child welfare. American Humane Association. https://www.pdx.edu/center-child-family/sites/centerchildfamily.web.wdt.pdx.edu/files/2020-07/FGC-a-solution-to-racial-disproportionality.pdf
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.5)Study 15161
Anderson, G. W. P. (2003). Family Group Decision Making: An evaluation study in Michigan. Protecting Children, 18 (1 & 2), 96-98.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible publication source (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.2)Study 15163
Eaton, M., Whalen, P., & Anderson, G. (2007). Permanency planning mediation pilot program: The Michigan experience. The Michigan Child Welfare Law Journal, 10(3), 2-10.
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15164
Baldry, E., Bratel, J., Dunsire, M., & Durrant, M. (2005). Keeping children with a disability safely in their families. Practice, 17(3), 143-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/09503150500285099
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15166
Bell, M. & Wilson, K. (2006). Children's views of Family Group Conferences. British Journal of Social Work, 36(4), 671-681. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch421
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.5)Study 15167
Berzin, S. C. (2006). Using sibling data to understand the impact of Family Group Decision-Making on child welfare outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(12), 1449-1458. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.03.003
Berzin, S. C., Thomas, K. L., & Cohen, E. (2007). Assessing model fidelity in two Family Group Decision-Making programs: Is this child welfare intervention being implemented as intended? Journal of Social Service Research, 34(2), 55-71. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J079v34n02_05
Berzin, S. C., Cohen, E., Thomas, K., & Dawson, W. C. (2008). Does Family Group Decision Making affect child welfare outcomes? Findings from a randomized control study. Child Welfare, 87(4), 35-54. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19391466/
Center for Social Services Research. (2004). California's Title IV-E child welfare demonstration project: Final evaluation report executive summary. University of California Berkeley.
Cohen, E., Ferguson, C., Berzin, S., Thomas, K., Lorentzen, B., & Dawson, W. (2004). California's Title IV-E child welfare waiver demonstration project evaluation: Final report, selected chapters. University of California Berkeley, School of Social Welfare, Child Welfare Research Center.
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15169
Child Trends. (2016). Lifelong Connections Initiative: Final progress report. US Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau. https://cwlibrary.childwelfare.gov/discovery/delivery/01CWIG_INST:CBDG/1218486910007651
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15173
Dalrymple, J. (2002). Family Group Conferences and youth advocacy: The participation of children and youth people in family decision making. European Journal of Social Work, 5(3), 287-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/714053160
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.5)Study 15175
Edwards, M., Tinworth, K., Burford, G., & Pennell, J. (2006). Family Team Meeting (FTM) process, outcome, and impact evaluation: Phase II report. American Humane Association.
Pennell, J., Edwards, M., & Burford, G. (2010). Expedited family group engagement and child permanency. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(7), 1012-1019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.03.029
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15177
Gunderson, K., Cahn, K., & Wirth, J. (2003). The Washington state long-term outcome study. Protecting Children, 18(1-2), 42-47.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible publication source (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.2)Study 15179
Harris, N. (2006). Reintegrative shaming, shame, and criminal justice [Criminal Law & Adjudication 4230]. Journal of Social Issues, 62(2), 327-346. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00453.x
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15180
Hayden, C. (2009). Family Group Conferences—are they an effective and viable way of working with attendance and behaviour problems in schools? British Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 205-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920802041939
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15181
Hillebregt, C. F., Scholten, E. W. M., Ketelaar, M., Post, M. W. M., & Visser-Meily, J. M. A. (2018). Effects of Family Group Conferences among high-risk patients of chronic disability and their significant others: Study protocol for a multicentre controlled trial. BMJ Open, 8(3), Article e018883. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018883
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15182
Hipple, N. K., Gruenewald, J., & McGarrell, E. F. (2014). Restorativeness, procedural justice, and defiance as predictors of reoffending of participants in Family Group Conferences. Crime & Delinquency, 60(8), 1131-1157. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011128711428556
Hipple, N. K., Gruenewald, J., & McGarrell, E. F. (2015). Restorativeness, procedural justice, and defiance as long-term predictors of reoffending of participants in Family Group Conferences. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(11), 1110-1127. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854815601153
Jeong, S., McGarrell, E. F., & Hipple, N. K. (2012). Long-term impact of Family Group Conferences on re-offending: The Indianapolis restorative justice experiment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8(4), 369-385. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11292-012-9158-8
McGarrell, E. F., Olivares, K., Crawford, K., & Hipple, N. K. (2000). Returning justice to the community: The Indianapolis Juvenile Restorative Justice Experiment. Hudson Institute, Crime Control Policy Center. https://archive.org/details/isbn_1558130721
McGarrell, E. F. (2001). Restorative justice conferences as an early response to young offenders. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/187769.pdf
McGarrell, E. F., & Hipple, N. K. (2007). Family Group Conferencing and re-offending among first-time juvenile offenders: The Indianapolis experiment. Justice Quarterly, 24(2), 221-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820701294789
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15187
Little, M., Kogan, J., Bullock, R., & Van Der Laan, P. (2004). ISSP: An experiment in multi-systemic responses to persistent young offenders known to children's services. British Journal of Criminology, 44(2), 225-240. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjc/44.2.225
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15188
Luengen, K., Mazerolle, L., & Antrobus, E. (2022). Fostering intentions to attend school: Applying the theory of planned behaviour to shape positive behavioural intentions in a cohort of truanting youths. Current Psychology, 41, 7645-7656. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01309-8
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15189
Lupton, C., & Stevens, M. (2003). Family outcomes: Following through on Family Group Conferences. Protecting Children, 18(1-2), 127-129.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible publication source (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.2)Study 15190
Malmberg-Heimonen, I. (2011). The effects of Family Group Conferences on social support and mental health for longer-term social assistance recipients in Norway. British Journal of Social Work, 41(5), 949-967. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcr001
Malmberg-Heimonen, I., & Johansen, S. (2014). Understanding the longer-term effects of Family Group Conferences. European Journal of Social Work, 17(4), 556-571. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2013.818528
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15191
Marcynyszyn, L. A., Bear, P. S., Geary, E., Conti, R., Pecora, P. J., Day, P. A., & Wilson, S. T. (2012). Family Group Decision Making (FGDM) with Lakota families in two tribal communities: Tools to facilitate FGDM implementation and evaluation. Child Welfare, 91(3), 113-134. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23444792/
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.5)Study 15192
Marsh, P. (2003). Family Group Conferencing: A national process and outcome study in England and Wales. Protecting Children, 18, 129-132.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.5)Study 15193
Maryland Department of Human Resources, Social Services Administration. (2013). Making place matter through family kin connections: Final report. https://cwlibrary.childwelfare.gov/discovery/delivery/01CWIG_INST:CBDG/1218363450007651
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15194
Baffour, T. D. (2006). Ethnic and gender differences in offending patterns: Examining Family Group Conferencing interventions among at-risk adolescents. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 23(5-6), 557-578. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10560-006-0075-4
McCold, P., & Wachtel, B. (1998). Restorative policing experiment: The Bethlehem Policy Family Group Conferencing Project. Community Service Foundation. https://www.iirp.edu/images/pdf/BPD.pdf
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15195
McCrae, J. S., & Fusco, R. A. (2010). A racial comparison of Family Group Decision Making in the USA. Child & Family Social Work, 15(1), 41-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2009.00636.x
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.5)Study 15196
McDonald, W. (1998). The Santa Clara County Family Conference Model: Evaluation Design. Santa Clara County Social Services Agency, Department of Family and Children's Services. https://cwlibrary.childwelfare.gov/discovery/delivery/01CWIG_INST:01CWIG/1224229580007651
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15197
McDonell, J. R., Limber, S. P., & Connor-Godbey, J. (2007). Pathways teen mother support project: Longitudinal findings. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(7), 840-855. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.01.001
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15198
Meijer, E., Schout, G., de Jong, G., & Abma, T. (2017). Regaining ownership and restoring belongingness: Impact of Family Group Conferences in coercive psychiatry. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 73(8), 1862-1872. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13270
Meijer, E., Schout, G., & Abma, T. (2019). Family Group Conferences in coercive psychiatry: On forming partnerships between the client, social networks and professionals. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, (40)6, 459-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2018.1563254
Schout, G., Meijer, E., & de Jong, G. (2017). Family Group Conferencing - its added value in mental health care. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 38(6), 480-485. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2017.1282996
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15199
Moffett, J. (2015). Site visit report: Homes for Black children: Nurturing the resiliency in Wayne County families: Rethinking the Family Decision-Making Model as community-centered child and family work. US Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau. https://cwlibrary.childwelfare.gov/discovery/delivery/01CWIG_INST:CBDG/1218447300007651
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15200
Munro, E. R., Meetoo, V., Qay, K., & Simon, A. (2017). Daybreak Family Group Conference: Children on the edge of care research report. Thomas Coram Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education and the Tilda Goldberg Centre for Social Work and Social Care, University of Bedfordshire. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/84589514.pdf
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible comparison condition (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.7)Study 15201
Mutter, R., Shemmings, D., Dugmore, P., & Hyare, M. (2008). Family Group Conferences in youth justice. Health & Social Care in the Community, 16(3), 262-270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2008.00770.x
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15202
Newman, D. L. & Kalfus, G. R. (1995). Evaluating a decision-making system to improve outcomes of child welfare services: Final report. Westchester Institute for Human Development.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible publication source (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.2)Study 15204
Pugh, R. (2002). A family group conference pilot project: Evaluation and discussion. Practice, 14(2), 45-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/09503150208414301
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.5)Study 15205
Rauktis, M. E., McCarthy, S., & Krackhardt, D. (2010). Innovation in child welfare: The adoption and implementation of Family Group Decision Making in Pennsylvania. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(5), 732-739. https://doi.org/10.1080/09503150208414301
Rauktis, M. E., Huefner, J., & Cahalane, H. (2011). Perceptions of fidelity to Family Group Decision-Making principles: Examining the impact of race, gender, and relationship. Child Welfare, 90(4), 41-59. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22413379/
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.5)Study 15206
Rotabi, K. S., Pennell, J., Roby, J. L., & Bunkers, K. M. (2012). Family Group Conferencing as a culturally adaptable intervention: Reforming intercountry adoption in Guatemala. International Social Work, 55(3), 402-416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872812437229
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.5)Study 15209
Sieppert, J. D., Hudson, J., & Unrau, Y. (2000). Family Group Conferencing in child welfare: Lessons from a demonstration project. Families in Society, 81(4), 382-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.1034
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.5)Study 15212
Tapper, L. (2010). Using Family Group Conferences in safeguarding adults. Journal of Adult Protection, 12(1), 27-31. https://doi.org/10.5042/jap.2010.0091
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15213
Tew, J., Plumrige, G., Nicholls, V., & Clarke, H. (2014). Whole family approaches to reablement in mental health: Scoping current practice. Family Potential Research Centre. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-social-sciences/social-policy/family-potential/whole-family-approaches-to-reablement-in-mental-health.pdf
Tew, J., Plumrige, G., Nicholls, V., & Clarke, H. (2015). Can whole family approaches contribute to the reablement of people with mental health difficulties? National Institute for Health Research School for Social Care Research. https://sscr.nihr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/20.-SSCR-research-findings_RF020.pdf
Tew, J., Nicholls, V., Plumridge, J., & Clarke, H. (2017). Family inclusive approaches to reablement in mental health: Models, mechanisms and outcomes. British Journal of Social Work, (47), 863-84. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcw106
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15215
The Children's Home Society of New Jersey. (2015). Site visit report: The Children's Home Society of New Jersey Kinship Connections Program. US Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau.
The Children's Home Society of New Jersey. (2015). Kinship Family Group Decision Making: Final report. US Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible comparison condition (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.7)Study 15216
The Village Family Service Center. (2014). Family engagement for Native American youth: Final report. US Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families. https://cwlibrary.childwelfare.gov/permalink/01CWIG_INST/1a9dc3l/alma991001110929707651
The Village Family Service Center. (2014). Family engagement for Native American youth: Final report appendix. US Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families. https://cwlibrary.childwelfare.gov/permalink/01CWIG_INST/1a9dc3l/alma991001110939707651
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15219
Weigensberg, E. C., Barth, R. P., & Guo, S. (2009). Family Group Decision Making: A propensity score analysis to evaluate child and family services at baseline and after 36-months. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(3), 383-390. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.09.001
This study is ineligible for review because it does not report program or service impacts on an eligible outcome (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.8)Study 15220
Weisz, V., Korpas, A., & Wingrove, T. (2006). Nebraska Family Group Conferencing: Evaluation report. University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Center on Children, Families, and the Law, Nebraska Court Improvement Project.
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15221
Wijnen-Lunenburg, P., van Beek, F., Bijl, B., Gramberg, P., & Slot, W. (2008). It is the family's move: The effects of Eigen Kracht conferences within the context of youth protection and with respect to safety, social cohesion and control. PI Research/WESP.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not report program or service impacts on an eligible outcome (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.8)Study 15222
Xu, Y., Ahn, H., & Bright, C. L. (2017). Family involvement meetings: Engagement, facilitation, and child and family goals. Children & Youth Services Review, 79, 37-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.05.026
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.5)Study 15223
Kempe Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect. (2016). Found, engaged and connected: Innovating for Olmsted County's most vulnerable children and youth. Final report. US Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families.
Kempe Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect. (2016). Found, engaged and connected: Innovating for Olmsted County's most vulnerable children and youth. Final report appendices. US Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families.
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)Study 15224
Kempe Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect, New York City Administration for Children's Services, & Hunter College Silberman School of Social Work. (2019). Enhanced Family Conferencing Initiative: Final grantee report. US Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/acs/pdf/initiatives/2020/EFCIFinalReport.pdf
Lalayants, M., DePanfilis, D., Merkel-Holguin, L., Baldwin, M., Schmidt, M., Treinen, J., Zuniga, D., Mackereth, C., & Anderson, T. (2022). Building evidence for Family Group Decision-Making in child welfare: Operationalizing the intervention. Journal of Public Child Welfare. 16(3), 376-401. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2021.1891185
Lalayants, M., & Merkel-Holguin, L. (2023). Adapting private family time in child protective services decision-making processes. Child & Family Social Work. 28(3), 723-733. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12999
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)