'Ohana Conferencing
’Ohana Conferencing (‘OC) is an adaptation of Family Group Decision Making originally designed to support Hawaiian families with children ages 0–17 who are involved in the child welfare system. ‘OC uses traditional Hawaiian practices focused on relationships and community harmony and a family group conference to create and implement a child safety and care plan. ‘OC seeks to engage an extended family group consisting of parents, primary caregivers, individuals with kinship and other connections to the child, and the child whenever possible.
‘OC uses a four-phase process involving (1) program referral, (2) conference coordination, (3) the initial conference, and (4) implementation and re-conferencing. First, in the referral phase, an ‘OC facilitator who is not involved in the case works with child welfare agency staff to reach out to the parents or primary caregivers and help the family decide whether to participate in ‘OC.
Second, in the coordination phase, the facilitator identifies and invites an extended family group to participate. The facilitator 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 initial conference 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 child safety concerns that the plan must address. The facilitator then leads the group through structured discussion designed to assess the family’s strengths, identify potential supports, and outline a preliminary service plan. The facilitator suggests goals and items for the family group to discuss privately as they finalize 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. The family group, facilitator, and child welfare agency staff then discuss the family’s plan, and all participants sign the final written plan.
Fourth, in the implementation and re-conferencing phase, child welfare agency staff, service providers, and the facilitator support the family group by providing resources and services. The facilitator also sets up re-conferences to review progress and adapt the plan as needed.
'OC does not currently meet criteria to receive a rating because no studies of the program that achieved a rating of moderate or high on design and execution demonstrated a favorable effect on a target outcome.
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, the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare, and the studies reviewed.
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
‘OC is designed to serve families with children ages 0–17 who are involved in the child welfare system.
Dosage
The referral phase of ‘OC does not have a set duration or frequency, though the referring child welfare agency worker and facilitator move through any formal referral processes required by the child welfare agency as quickly as possible.
The coordination phase should take place within 10 days of the initial referral.
The family group conference is designed to allow as much time as needed for private family planning. On average, family group conferences last 1.5–2 hours.
The family’s needs determine the quantity, duration, and frequency of services during the implementation and re-conferencing phase. Re-conferences typically occur every 3 months but can occur every 1-5 months. Implementation and re-conferencing continue 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 facilitator typically holds in-person meetings or phone calls with family group members during the referral and coordination phases. Conferences are usually held in-person at a location chosen by the family group, such as a library, community center, place of worship, or school setting. Alternatively, conferences may be held entirely through video conferencing or some family group members may join the meeting via video conferencing. Re-conferences can occur in person or via video conferencing. Providers involved in the implementation and re-conferencing phase can deliver resources and services in a variety of settings.
Education, Certifications and Training
The facilitator should have skills in basic negotiation, facilitation techniques such as summarizing and clarifying, and intervention and conflict management. The facilitator should have skills to communicate effectively through nonverbal communication, active listening, reflective listening, reframing, and asking questions. The facilitator should have an awareness of group dynamics.
Program or Service Documentation
Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review
EPIC ‘Ohana, Inc. (2014). Facilitator training.
Available languages
The ‘OC manual is available in English.
Other supporting materials
For More Information
Website: https://www.epicohana.org/ohana-conference
Phone: 808-748-7062
Email: ekurashige@epicohana.org
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 'Ohana Conferencing |
|---|---|
| Identified in Search | 8 |
| Eligible for Review | 3 |
| Rated High | 1 |
| Rated Moderate | 0 |
| Rated Low | 2 |
| Reviewed Only for Risk of Harm | 0 |
| Outcome | Effect Size
|
95% Confidence Interval
|
Implied Percentile Effect
|
N of Studies (Findings) | N of Participants | Summary of Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child safety: Child welfare administrative reports | 0.27 | [0.09, 0.45] | 10 | 1 (2) | 503 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 2 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Child permanency: Out-of-home placement | 0.22 | [0.05, 0.40] | 8 | 1 (1) | 503 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0 |
Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention condition and a negative number favors the comparison condition. A range of comparison conditions, including no intervention, minimal intervention, placebo or attention, treatment as usual, and head-to-head comparison conditions are eligible for review (see Section 4.1.7 of the Handbook Version 2.0). Different types of comparison conditions may affect the magnitude of the effect sizes across studies. For example, an intervention compared to a no treatment comparison condition may produce a larger effect size than the same intervention compared to another intervention because the other intervention may itself be effective. The effect sizes shown may be derived from samples that overlap across studies. See the Individual Study Findings table for information about the specific comparison conditions used in each study and the Studies Reviewed section for information about any overlapping samples. The effect sizes presented here are provided for informational purposes only and are not used in determining a program or service rating.
| Outcome | Effect Size
|
Implied Percentile Effect
|
Months after treatment when outcome measured
|
Number of Participants | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child safety: Child welfare administrative reports | |||||
| Study 15170 - FGC vs. Business As Usual Control Group (Hollinshead, 2017) | |||||
| Re-Referral to CPS | 0.06 | 2 | 14 | 503 | |
| Substantiated Re-Referral | 0.48 | 18 | 14 | 503 | |
| Child permanency: Out-of-home placement | |||||
| Study 15170 - FGC vs. Business As Usual Control Group (Hollinshead, 2017) | |||||
| Out-of-Home Placement | 0.22 | 8 | 14 | 503 | |
*p <.05
Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention condition and a negative number favors the comparison condition. Effect sizes and implied percentile effects were calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse as described in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 2.0, Sections 6.4 and 6.5 and may not align with effect sizes reported in individual publications. The Prevention Services Clearinghouse uses information reported in study documents and, when necessary, information provided by study authors in response to author queries to assign study ratings and calculate effect sizes (see Section 8.4.2 in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 2.0). The Prevention Services Clearinghouse typically relies on study-reported p-values to form the basis of the assessment of statistical significance for a finding, but will perform its own statistical test of a finding using any available information in study documents or author queries, as needed (see Section 6.3 in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 2.0). As a result, the effect sizes and statistical significance reported in the table may not align with the estimates as they are reported in study documents.
Only publications with eligible contrasts that met design and execution standards are included in the individual study findings table.
Full citations for the studies shown in the table are available in the "Studies Reviewed" section.
The participant characteristics display is an initial version. We encourage those interested in providing feedback to send suggestions to preventionservices@abtglobal.com.
The table below displays locations, the year, and participant demographics for studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Participant characteristics for studies with more than one intervention versus comparison group pair that received moderate or high ratings are shown separately in the table. Please note, the information presented here uses terminology directly from the study documents, when available. Studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution that did not include relevant participant demographic information would not be represented in this table.
For more information on how Clearinghouse reviewers record the information in the table, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.
| Characteristics of the Participants in the Studies with Moderate or High Ratings | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Study Location
|
Study Year
|
Demographic Characteristics
|
Populations of Interest*
|
Household Socioeconomic Status
|
||
| Study 15170 - FGC vs. Business As Usual Control Group | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Texas, USA | 2012 |
Average age: 2 years
|
-- | -- | ||
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| Texas, USA | 2012 |
Average age: 27 years
38% White
32% African American 30% Hispanic |
100% Families involved with the child welfare system; 31% Prior confirmed victimization on case record | -- | ||
“--” indicates information not reported in the study.
* The information about disabilities is based on initial coding. For more information on how the Clearinghouse recorded disability information for the initial release, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.
Note: Citations for the documents associated with each 5-digit study number shown in the table can be found in the “Studies Reviewed” section below. Study settings and participant demographics are recorded for all studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Studies that did not report any information about setting or participant demographics are not displayed. For more information on how participant characteristics are recorded, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.
Studies Rated High
Study 15170Allan, H., Corwin, T., Fluke, J., Harlaar, N., Hollinshead, D., Horner, A., Maher, E., & Merkel-Holguin, L. (2015). No place like home: Final progress report. The Kempe Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse & Neglect and Casey Family Programs. https://kempecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/NPLH-Final-Report-2015.pdf
Allan, H., Harlaar, N., Hollinshead, D., Drury, I., & Merkel-Holguin, L. (2017). The impact of worker and agency characteristics on FGC referrals in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 81, 229-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.08.013
Corwin, T. W., Maher, E. J., Merkel-Holguin, L., Allan, H., Hollinshead, D. M., & Fluke, J. D. (2020). Increasing social support for child welfare-involved families through family group conferencing. The British Journal of Social Work, 50(1), 137-156. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcz036
Hollinshead, D. M., Corwin, T. W., Maher, E. J., Merkel-Holguin, L., Allan, H., & Fluke, J. D. (2017). Effectiveness of family group conferencing in preventing repeat referrals to child protective services and out-of-home placements. Child Abuse & Neglect, 69, 285-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.04.022
Maher, E. J., Allan, H., Merkel-Holguin, L., & Corwin, T. (2016). Using multi-site experimental and quasi-experimental designs to evaluate a common practice in child welfare. In Sage Research Methods Cases Part 2. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526401311
Merkel-Holguin, L., Schwab-Reese, L., Drury, I., Allan, H., & Hollinshead, D. (2019). Nothing about me without me: Children and young people's experiences with family group conferences. Child & Family Social Work, 25(1), 27-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12648
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 7.2.2)In addition to full sample analyses, this study also reported analyses that included the following subgroups:
- Family race: Hispanic
- Family race: African American
- Family race: White
- Family race: Multi-Racial
- Mother's race/ethnicity: African American
- Mother's race/ethnicity: Hispanic
- Mother's race/ethnicity: White
Studies Rated Low
Study 15218Walker, L. (2005). A cohort study of 'Ohana Conferencing in child abuse and neglect cases. Protecting Children, 19(4), 36-46. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2137955
This study received a low rating because it did not meet the statistical model standards.Study 15186
Lambert, M. C., Johnson, L. E., & Wang, E. W. (2017). The impact of Family Group Decision-Making on preventing removals. Children and Youth Services Review, 78, 89-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.05.005
Wang, E. (2010). Family Group Decision-Making: Impact on removals and permanency in Texas. Texas Tech University.
Wang, E. W., Lambert, M. C., Johnson, L. E., Boudreau, B., Breidenbach, R., & Baumann, D. (2012). Expediting permanent placement from foster care systems: The role of Family Group Decision-Making. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(4), 845-850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.01.015
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 15165
Baumann, D. J., Tecci, M., Ritter, J., Sheets, J., & Wittenstrom, K. (2005). Family Group Decision-Making. Stage Two, Preliminary Evaluation. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.
Baumann, D. (2006). Family Group Decision Making: Final evaluation. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.
Sheets, J., Wittenstrom, K., Fong, R., James, J., Tecci, M., Baumann, D. J., & Rodriguez, C. (2009). Evidence-based practice in Family Group Decision-Making for Anglo, African American and Hispanic families. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(11), 1187-1191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.08.003
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 15176
Godinet, M. T., Arnsberger, P., Li, F., & Kreif, T. (2010). Disproportionality, 'Ohana Conferencing, and the Hawai'i child welfare system. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 4(4), 387-405. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2010.526898
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible comparison condition (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.7)Study 15183
Litchfield, M. M., Oetjen, J. A., Maxwell, D. M., Gatowski, S. I., & Dobbin, S. A. (2003). Empowering families in child protection cases: An implementation evaluation of Hawai’i’s ‘Ohana Conferencing program [Technical Assistance Bulletin] (Report No. 2). National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible comparison condition (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.7)Study 15184
SMS Research & Marketing, Inc. (1999). Program evaluation: 'Ohana Conferencing. EPIC and State of Hawai'i Department of Human Services.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible publication source (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.2)Study 15214
James Bell Associates, Inc. (2013). Family Connection Discretionary Grants: 2009-funded grantees cross-site evaluation report - final (Contract No. GS10F0204K). https://www.jbassoc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Family-Connection-Evaluation-2009.pdf
The Catalyst Group, LLC. (2012). Family Connections Hawai'i final report. Hawaii Department of Human Services.
Department of Human Services, State of Hawai‘i. (2012). Family Connections Hawai'i Final Report.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible comparison condition (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.7)