“Pathways to Permanency”
Family Group Decision Making
Teaching Guide to Accompany Video
National Center on
Family Group Decision
Making
National Center on Family Group Decision Making
Table of Contents
Welcome _________________________________________
Historical Context __________________________________
Underlying Principles _______________________________
Model Adaptations and Considerations _________________
Preparation Activities _______________________________
Defining Family__________________________________
How many people should be invited? _________________
Who should attend? _______________________________
Common Structure of a Family Meeting ________________
Introductions ____________________________________
Sharing Information _______________________________
Private Family Time/Creating the Plan ________________
Presenting the Plan _______________________________
Agreements, Resources, and Follow-Up _______________
Outcomes ________________________________________
Common Questions About FGDM _____________________
“When is FGDM Used in the Life of a Case?” __________
“Can FGDM Be Used in Domestic Violence and Sexual
Abuse Cases?” ___________________________________
Credits ___________________________________________
American Humane Association, National Center on FGDM
Ordering information _______________________________
References ________________________________________
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
8
9
“Pathways to Permanency” FGDM Teaching Guide 1
National Center on Family Group Decision Making
Welcome
Underlying Principles
This is the first in “The Pathways to Permanency” series from
Courter Films. We hope this video will provide you with
substantial background information about Family Group
Decision Making (FGDM), and give you the basis for starting
on the “Pathway to Permanency.”
Family Group Decision Making is rooted in strengths-based,
child-centered, and family-focused philosophies. A strengthsbased approach helps to identify what a family does well or
what is good about a family. Child-centered and familyfocused mean that “the child’s protective needs are at the
center of decision making, but the service is focused on
building the family’s capacity to care for and protect the child”
(American Humane Association, 1996, pg. 13). With this
philosophical construct, professionals recognize that families
have expertise about themselves and their functioning. Family
members know their strengths, weaknesses and unspoken
secrets—knowledge that can be helpful in formulating plans
that better protect children.
This video vividly demonstrates the FGDM process, and
describes how it works to achieve improved safety and
permanency for children and increased family connectedness
and functioning.
In this video, you will see clips and scenes from various types
of Family Group Decision Making meetings. You will hear
from professionals working in the area of Family Group
Decision Making, as well as from the families who have
participated in this process. General principles and
components of FGDM are explained.
Historical Context
The Family Group Conference model was first developed and
legislatively mandated in New Zealand in 1989; the Family
Unity Meeting model was developed in Oregon in 1989.
Based on these two approaches, various models have
developed over the last 10 years. Now, approximately 100 US
communities have implemented some form of family group
decision making. For a listing of some of those communities,
please see www.fgdm.org and click on Programs Around the
World.
The philosophical constructs of FGDM also create a “shared
responsibility” for protecting children – one that is not placed
solely on the CPS agency, but that encompasses various
governmental agencies at the federal, state and local level; nonprofit local organizations; community leaders; citizen groups;
neighbors; and most importantly--family (Merkel-Holguin &
Ribich, in press, 2001).
Universally, the goals of FGDM are to improve child safety,
increase permanency and permanency options for children,
increase family connectedness, and increase family
functioning.
“Pathways to Permanency” FGDM Teaching Guide 2
National Center on Family Group Decision Making
Model Adaptations and Considerations
Preparation Activities
This video portrays Family Group Decision Making through
various models in the communities where they are in use.
When talking about each model, it is helpful to ask
communities to clarify what components of the FGDM process
they have incorporated into their model, in addition to asking
what model they are using. As FGDM models continue to
evolve, and more communities are engaging in FGDM
processes, there is less clarity in terms.
It is critical to prepare both information givers and family
members for the meeting to help them understand the meeting
concept, clarify their roles, and reduce their anxieties
(American Humane Association, 1997). Information givers
need time to get the facts together, and need to understand the
importance of accuracy and honesty when presented those facts
in the meeting. All participants need to know the purpose of
the meeting beforehand.
From a historical perspective, in the early 1990s, there were
two primary models used in the United States. These were the
Family Group Conference model imported from New Zealand,
and the Family Unity Meeting model developed in Oregon. At
that time, a few primary components distinguished the two
models. These were the length of preparation time before the
meeting, the method used to share information at the beginning
of the meeting, and the use of family private time during the
meeting. These components are discussed later in more detail.
Research demonstrates that both the coordinator’s ability and
the quality of preparation and planning correlates to the overall
success of the conference (Paterson & Harvey, 1991; Maxwell
& Morris, 1993). While the amount of time it takes to
adequately prepare a family varies based on case and familyspecific circumstances, data from communities worldwide
suggest that an average of 22-35 hours per family group
conference is necessary to undertake the comprehensive
activities in this phase (Gunderson, 1998; Pennell & Burford,
1995; Crow & Marsh, 1999).
Regardless of the model adaptations today, the most important
consideration is whether the adaptations support the underlying
philosophies and values of Family Group Decision Making.
This is a sound measure to determine best practice approaches.
Communities developing Family Group Decision Making
models can ask “does this model embody and promote the
values of FGDM or does it conflict with those values?” If the
community believes in one value, but the approach they
implement communicates a conflicting value, does this do a
disservice to the family that participates?
It is suggested that the coordinator have adequate time and
flexibility to complete a number of pre-conference activities
that are critical to the success of the conference. These
activities may include:





Identifying participants – both family members and
professionals
Ensuring safety for the child or adolescent (if participating)
Broadening the concept of family
Reaching agreement with family members (a specific
activity to non-court-ordered cases in the United States)
Inviting family members and other participants
“Pathways to Permanency” FGDM Teaching Guide 3
National Center on Family Group Decision Making








Involving offenders, survivors, and children
Clearly defining and communicating participants’ roles
Educating family members and support persons regarding
the process/model
Helping with the preparation of statements in advance
Managing unresolved family issues
Preparing professionals
Coordinating logistics (place, transportation, child care,
food, etc.)
Recontacting meeting participants
(American Humane Association, 1997).
Defining Family
One of the primary tasks involved in the preparation stage is
identifying and inviting family members. One of Kook and
Sivak’s (1998) basic principles is that “nuclear families are a
part of the whole family.” Too often, only family members
within the local community are considered family, which
misrepresents the multigenerational, extended family network.
Kook and Sivak (1998) suggest working with families to
develop their definition of family, which is likely to transcend
the obvious kinship network, to include neighbors, friends, and
others. When “family” is defined broadly, social isolation
decreases while social supports increase. Pennell and Burford
(1995) substantiated this notion when they discovered that
family members had broader social networks than they
originally believed. To get at the notion of family—which will
be different in every case—it is important to ask the family,
“How do you define family?” or “Who do you consider part of
your family?” It is crucial that the definition is based on the
family’s perceptions, not those of the other professionals
involved in the case. (Merkel-Holguin & Ribich, in press, 2001).
How many people should be invited?
Given that FGDM philosophies underscore that children
belong to families and that families are responsible for the care
and protection of their children, it logically flows that anyone
who fits the definition of “family” is invited to the family
group conference, unless their attendance presents safety
concerns.
The family group conference must involve the wider family
network. Otherwise, the plans devised are less likely to capture
all potential supports, resources, and suggestions that could
resolve the concerns presented at the Conference. Exclusion
policies remove family members from the conference when
participant safety is jeopardized by threats of violence,
individuals exhibit a mental disturbance or drug addiction, or a
person’s participation would unduly stress the abused (Pennell
& Burford, 1994; American Humane Association, 1997).
The average number of FGC participants has fluctuated
between 11 in New Zealand (Paterson & Harvey, 1991) to
between 13-14 in Newfoundland, Canada (Burford & Pennell,
1995) to 9 in the United Kingdom (Marsh & Crow, 1998).
What is more important than the total number of participants is
their relationship to the family. The body of worldwide
research shows that biological family members are likely to
outnumber both support people and professionals attending.
Who should attend?
A variety of individuals are invited to attend the FGDM
meeting, including the child or adolescent, his or her parents or
guardians, extended family, tribal elders, and close family and
friends, particularly when extended family members are not
available. In addition to the family, a cadre of human service
“Pathways to Permanency” FGDM Teaching Guide 4
National Center on Family Group Decision Making
professionals, the coordinator, the investigative worker, the
child’s attorney if court proceedings are underway, and other
professionals such as psychologists, clergy, and teachers are
invited to participate in certain aspects of the meeting.
Either the number of professionals attending the meeting
should be held to a minimum to safeguard against family
members feeling overpowered or a comfortable blend of family
members and professionals should be attained (American
Humane Association, 1997).
Common Structure of a Family Meeting
Introductions
The meeting can begin with a family tradition (prayer, song, or
tribal chant) if the family requested one. The coordinator or
facilitator then welcomes the participants, reiterates the
meeting process, goals, and participant roles, and clarifies any
misunderstandings. The coordinator or facilitator should also
detail the policy for accepting the plan, to clearly explain
expectations.
Sharing Information
The purpose of the information sharing stage is to provide
necessary information and guidance that the family will need to
engage in the most productive problem-solving process
possible. Clarity and understanding are critical (American Bar
Association, 1996).
There are two predominant ways information is shared during
this phase of the meeting. One way, based on the Family Group
Conference model originated in New Zealand, is for the
referring social worker to present the facts of the case and the
family asks questions to clarify. The other way, based on the
Family Unity Meeting model developed in 1989, is for the
participants to discuss the strengths and concerns for the family
related to the reason the FGDM meeting was called. Both are
done in relation to the goal established for the meeting to keep
the discussions focused.
Private Family Time/Creating the Plan
In most models, once all of the information has been presented,
the professionals and other non-family members leave the
room, giving the family as much time as they need to create a
plan. Once the family has made a decision, all other
participants are invited to return to the meeting. This approach
has its roots in the New Zealand Family Group Conference
model.
In other models, non-family members, such as family
supporters, are allowed in the room during private family time
if the family requests and reaches consensus about this. This
approach has occurred in New Zealand, Newfoundland, and the
United States. In some communities in the United States, there
recently has been a broadening of the definition of family,
which includes non-blood relatives, and so these people have
been included in the private family time.
In still other models, the plan is created with all of the
participants in the room, using a neutral facilitator to guide the
discussion. In the Family Unity Meeting model in the early
1990s, this approach was used.
“Current literature suggests two influential reasons for
excluding professionals and non-family members from the
private family time. First, it is believed that family members
are not as likely to reveal family secrets that may impact the
case if non-family members and professionals are present.
“Pathways to Permanency” FGDM Teaching Guide 5
National Center on Family Group Decision Making
Second, professionals often end up either facilitating or
inadvertently controlling the discussion,” (American Humane
Association, 1997, pg. 32).
Presenting the Plan
If the model incorporates private family time, the full group
reconvenes and a family spokesperson presents and explains
the rationale for their plan to the group. The coordinator and
social worker may have questions, comments, or potential
concerns about the decision, and may ask the family to
reconsider some points. In those cases, typically the family
would reconvene in private time to modify the plan.
Agreements, Resources, and Follow-Up
Research has shown that a family’s plan is rarely vetoed. Once
agreement is reached, the coordinator, sometimes in
collaboration with the family, records the decisions in writing
and distributes them to the meeting participants. The written
plans detail specific steps for implementing the decision,
including resource allocations, responsible individuals, time
frames, contingency plans, a monitoring system, and an
evaluation process (American Humane Association, 1997).
Family members are likely to extend their own resources to
support the plan, but formal resources must also be available to
assist the family.
After the plan has been implemented and resources are in
place, it requires follow-up and monitoring to ensure its
effectiveness in achieving child safety, functioning, and wellbeing. Monitoring is a useful vehicle to create continued
partnerships between agencies and families to ensure progress
and attainment of goals (Merkel-Holguin & Ribich, in press,
2001).
Outcomes
It has been shown that most families can come up with plans
and most plans are accepted. It also appears that most plans
that families create are more detailed and have higher
expectations of family members than plans created solely by
workers.
Pennell and Burford (1997, p. 3) found that families
participating in FGCs, as compared to those receiving
traditional interventions in the child welfare system,
experienced “decreases in substantiated child abuse/neglect,
emergency responses to crises, and indicators of woman/wife
abuse; and increases in indicators that family members were
safe at home.” In addition, the project participants reported
that the FGCs improved family functioning through an
enhancement of family unity, improved care for children,
decreased family violence, and reduced drinking problems
(Pennell & Burford, 1997).
The increased likelihood that children were more likely placed
with extended family (Crow & Marsh 1997; Connolly, 1994;
Vesneski, 1998) supports FGCs as building partnerships and
support networks within family units to protect children, while
also honoring their culture and history. Marsh and Crow
(1998) concluded from their research that FGC plans both
protect and benefit children, as demonstrated by indicators on
the at-risk register and re-abuse rates. (Merkel-Holguin &
Ribich, in press, 2001).
For more research on FGDM, go to www.fgdm.org and click
on Research to read summaries of research and evaluation
projects that have been completed from around the world.
“Pathways to Permanency” FGDM Teaching Guide 6
National Center on Family Group Decision Making
Common Questions About FGDM
“When is FGDM Used in the Life of a Case?”
Communities are also initiating FGDM processes at various
stages in the life of a case. Some family conferences are
occurring on the front-end, before court involvement. Others
are occurring in cases where parental rights have been
terminated and placement options are being explored.
“Can FGDM Be Used in Domestic Violence
and Sexual Abuse Cases?”
FGDM has been used with all types of cases, including child
sexual abuse, domestic violence, physical abuse, neglect,
mental illness, and developmental disabilities.
New Zealand experience has shown that Family Group
Conferencing can be used in child sexual abuse cases if the
proper supports and guidelines are instituted to ensure the
safety and confidentiality of all participants involved in the
conference. Newfoundland’s demonstration project reports
similar findings using Family Group Conferencing in cases
involving domestic violence (Pennell & Burford, 1997).
The primary concern in cases of domestic violence and sexual
abuse is that the victims are safe. If both the victim and
offender are attending the meeting, it is necessary to have a
support person or spokesperson accompany them during the
conference, and opportunities made available if anyone feels
the need to leave the meeting. If either the victim or offender
is not attending the meeting, other opportunities to hear from
them should be offered, such as through letters or audio or
videotapes.
Credits
This guide was compiled by Kim Ribich, Policy Assistant,
Children’s Services, American Humane Association.
American Humane Association, National
Center on FGDM
The National Center on Family Group Decision Making is
headquartered at the American Humane Association in
Englewood, CO. The National Center on FGDM strives to
build community capacity to implement high-quality, effective
family group decision making processes that are
philosophically congruent with the central values and beliefs of
this approach. To accomplish this goal, the National Center
engages in material development and dissemination; training,
technical assistance and consultation; and creating linkages to
forge international networks.
For more information about these and other resources, as well
as information about implementing Family Group Decision
Making, contact The National Center on Family Group
Decision Making, American Humane Association, 63
Inverness Drive East, Englewood, CO 80112, Phone 1-800227-4645, [email protected], www.fgdm.org
The video was directed, photographed, and edited by Philip
Courter and written and produced by Gay Courter.
“Pathways to Permanency” FGDM Teaching Guide 7
National Center on Family Group Decision Making
Ordering information
Courter Films & Associates
121 N.W. Crystal St.
Crystal River, FL 34428
Office # (352) 795-2156
Fax # (352) 795-6144
Email: [email protected]
www.courterfilms.com
Films in the “Pathways to Permanency” Series include:
“Introduction to Mediation, Family Group Conferencing,
and Concurrent Planning: Pathways to Permanency”
(Series Overview Video)
(Available at no charge ONLY from: The Dave Thomas
Foundation for Adoption, PO Box 7164, Dublin, OH 43017,
Fax (614) 766-3871, (614) 764-8454,
[email protected])
“Permanency Toolkit: Family Group Decision Making” (30
minutes) – Available from Courter Films & Associates
“A Plan for Joseph: An Actual Family Group Conference”
(75 minutes) – Available from Courter Films & Associates.
This video was edited from an actual four-hour Family Group
Conference held in Santa Clara County, California, and
includes private family time.
An extended family returns for a follow-up conference about
Joseph, who had been placed with relatives when his mother
went to prison for drug abuse. Now released and in recovery,
Joseph’s mother is frustrated at the resistance of his caregivers
to allow her, or even other members of the family, to have
regular visitation. Joseph is acting out and is very angry and
confused. His relative caregivers believe that it is in his best
interest to withhold visits when he misbehaves. Family
members have come from hundreds of miles away to try to
resolve these complex issues in a volatile, emotional, and
heartfelt session. The conference has been shortened and a
brief narration has been added to clarify the situation. It may
be viewed as a whole, or started and stopped to promote
discussion among professionals interested in the subject,
especially those who are training to run family group decision
making meetings.
“Permanency Toolkit: Mediation” (30 minutes) – Available
from Courter Films & Associates
“Permanency Toolkit: Concurrent Planning” (30 minutes) –
Available from Courter Films & Associates
“Pathways to Permanency” FGDM Teaching Guide 8
National Center on Family Group Decision Making
References
American Humane Association. (1997). Innovations for
children’s services for the 21st Century: Family group
decision making and Patch. Englewood, CO: American
Humane Association.
American Humane Association. (1996). Helping in child
protective services: A competency-based casework
handbook. Englewood, CO: American Humane
Association.
Connolly, M. (1994). An act of empowerment: The children,
young persons and their families act. British Journal of
Social Work. 24 (1).87-100.
Gunderson, K. (1998). Pre-conference preparation: An
investment in success. Protecting Children, 14 (4).
11-12.
Hardin, M. (1996). Family group conferences in child abuse
and neglect cases: Learning from the experience of
New Zealand.Washington, DC: ABA Center on
Children and the Law, American Bar Association.
Kook, T., & Sivak, P. (1998). The Stanislaus model of family
conferencing: Basic principles, practice and structure.
35-43. Merkel-Holguin, L.& Alsop, R. (Eds.). 1998
National Roundtable on Family Group Decision
Making: Summary of Proceedings. Englewood, CO:
American Humane Association.
Marsh, P., & Crow, G. (1998). Family group conferences in
child welfare. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Maxwell, G., & Morris, A. (1993). Family group conferences:
Key elements. Paper presented at the Mission of St.
James and St. John, Melbourne, Australia.
Merkel-Holguin, L., & Ribich, K. (in press, 2001). Family
group conferencing: An extended family process to
safeguard children and strengthen family well-being. In
E. Walton, P. Sandau-Beckler, & M. Mannes (Eds.),
Balancing family-centered services and child
well-being: Exploring issues in policy, practice, theory
and research. New York: Columbia Press.
Paterson, K., & Harvey, M. (1991). An evaluation of the
organization and operation of care and protection
family group conferences. Wellington, New Zealand:
Evaluation Unit, Department of Social Welfare.
Pennell, J., & Burford, G. (1997). Family group decision
making: After the Conference—Progress in resolving
violence and promoting well being. St. Johns,
Newfoundland: Memorial University.
Pennell, J., & Burford, G. (1995). Family group decision
making implementation report. Newfoundland,
Canada: Memorial University.
Pennell, J., & Burford, G. (1994). Widening the circle: The
family group decision making project. Journal of Child
and Youth Care, 9(1); 1-12.
Vesneski, W.M. (1998). Placing Washington State’s Family
Group Conference Program in context: A theoretical
and empirical review. Unpublished master’s thesis,
University of Washington.
“Pathways to Permanency” FGDM Teaching Guide 9