AN EXPLORATORY CONVERSATION
ABOUT
FAMILY GROUP DECISION MAKING
HILLSIDE FAMILY OF AGENCIES SPEAKER SERIES
MAY 12, 2016
OPENING
BRANT FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES, BRANTFORD ON (CANADA)
• MARILEE SHERRY, MSW, RSW
MANAGER OF FGDM TEAM
• JACQUIE SCATCHERD, MSW, RSW
DIRECTOR OF SERVICE
• GISSELE TARABA, MSC, HEALTH RESEARCH METHODS
MANAGER OF QUALITY ASSURANCE
• MARTHA LARA, MSW, RSW
FGDM COORDINATOR
OUR PLAN FOR TODAY
1. INTRODUCTION TO FGDM
2. AGENCY CULTURE AND LEADERSHIP
3. GATHERING DATA: PROS AND CONS
4. CHILD AND YOUTH VOICE IN FGDM
HONORING THE HAUDENOSAUNEE
WHOSE LAND WE STAND ON TODAY
INTRODUCTION TO
FAMILY GROUP DECISION MAKING (FGDM)
MARILEE SHERRY, MSW, RSW
MAKING CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIES
MAKING CHOCOLATE CHIP
COOKIES
FAMILY GROUP DECISION MAKING (FGDM)
• FGDM IS A WAY FOR A CHILD/YOUTH AND THEIR EXTENDED FAMILY TO LEAD THE
DECISION-MAKING WHEN A CHILD/YOUTH IS INVOLVED WITH CHILD WELFARE
• AFTER THE CHILD WELFARE TEAM ACCEPTS THE FGDM PLAN, THE TEAM AND THE
CHILD/YOUTH’S FAMILY WORK TOGETHER TO IMPLEMENT THIS PLAN.
FGDM IS ABOUT RIGHTS
FGDM SUPPORTS THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD AND THE EXTENDED FAMILY:
• CHILDREN/YOUTH HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE A VOICE IN PLANS THAT AFFECT THEM.
• THE CHILD/YOUTH AND THE THEIR EXTENDED FAMILY HAS THE RIGHT TO PLAN FOR THEM
WHEN THERE IS A RISK THAT ONLY THE STATE (CHILD WELFARE/COURT) WILL DO THAT
PLANNING.
• NO INDIVIDUAL PERSON CAN STOP THIS PLANNING OR DENY THIS RIGHT.
THE ORIGINS OF THE FGC IN NEW ZEALAND*
•
DISPROPORTIONALITY
•
OVER- REPRESENTATION
•
ALIENATION
•
CREAKING SYSTEMS
•
*WITH THANKS TO MIKE DOOLAN
9
CHANGING PATHWAYS IN CHILD WELFARE*
Out of
home care
Orthodox
Emergency removal
Investigation
and
assessment
Report of
concern
Differential
Response
Family
Group care
Court
proceedings
Family Group
Conference
Adjudication
Family Group
Conference
Alternative
* With thanks to Mike Doolan
Two systems have to interact
The Professional System
Structured
Organized
Rules Based
Formal
Doolan (2009)
The Family System
Dynamic
Loose
Understandings based
Informal
THE FGC MODEL
Referral
Independent Coordinator
Preparation
1.
2.
3.
Monitoring
Michael Doolan
Information sharing
Private Time
Agreeing Plans
Review
12
AGENCY CULTURE AND
LEADERSHIP
Jacquie Scatcherd, MSW, RSW
OUR TEN YEAR VISION
ALL CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES ARE VALUED.
TOGETHER, WITH THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, WE SHARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF NURTURING,
PROTECTING, EDUCATING AND GUIDING ALL CHILDREN, YOUTH AND THEIR FAMILIES.
FAMILIES POSSESS THE WISDOM, ABILITIES AND RESOURCES TO BUILD A SUCCESSFUL FAMILY PLAN.
WE SUPPORT THEIR JOURNEY TOWARD SELF-DETERMINATION, SAFETY AND CARE.
CHILDREN AND YOUTH HAVE A VOICE AND ARE INVOLVED IN DECISION-MAKING; WE ENSURE THEY
HAVE THE NECESSARY RESOURCES TO BE WELL SUPPORTED FOR SUCCESS.
MUTUAL TRUST AND UNDERSTANDING IS BUILT THROUGH LISTENING AND COMMUNICATING WITH
RESPECT AND COMPASSION.
HOPE REPLACES FEAR AND FAMILIES ARE OPEN TO RECEIVE HELP EARLY.
OUR FAMILY ENGAGEMENT JOURNEY:
• SAFETY IS CREATED THROUGH INCLUSION
• COMMUNITY BASED CHILD WELFARE MODEL
• MANY COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY
• INFLUENCE OF OUR FIRST NATIONS STAFF AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS
• FGC/FGDM STARTED IN 2002
• TRAINED STAFF IN SIGNS OF SAFETY TOOLS STARTING IN 2008
• DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSE IMPLEMENTATION STARTED IN 2006
OUR STORY
Anti-Oppressive Perspective
Mission of Brant FACS
Clinical Supervision
Early
Help
Community
Based
Direct Practice
Signs of
Safety
FGC/FGDM.
Clinical
Counsel.
Continuum of Kin Involvement over Life of Child Welfare Involvement
Referral Child Safety
Concern
United Nations Rights of the Child
CFSA Requirements
NO
Open File
YES
NO
Close
File
NO
Is support
needed/
requested?
YES
RRNI
(Consult Band)
YES
Is Child Safe at Home?
YES
Safety Planning & Service Planning
With
Family, Kin, Community, Band
Support Needed/Requested
Widen
YES
Circle
Of
YES
YES
NO
Support
Are Safety Concerns
Addressed?
Child cannot remain at home
NO
Family Needs
More Time to Plan
YES
Does Family
/Caregiver
Agree?
NO
Widen
Circle
YES
Kin in Care/Customary Care
Family Planning
Meeting –Involve Band
Foster Home
Can Child Return
Home?
Widen
Of
With Collaboration Agreement
Kin Service/Customary
Care
I
YES
Support
Support
With TCA
Support
Of
Circle
Apprehension/Application
Of
Circle
NO
Are Kin Available
and Appropriate?
OR
Widen
Can Child
Remain at
Home with
Supports?
Annual Review
NO
Widen
Crown Wardship
with NO Access
Is Access to Parents or Kin
Meaningful and Beneficial
For the Child?
NO
Circle
Crown Wardship
with Access
YES
Widen
Circle
Of
↕
Of
Support
Are Kin
Available &
Appropriate?
NO
Support
YES
Consider Evaluate
Permanency Plan including
Customary Care
Planning with Family Circle
Is Openness to Parent and/or Kin
Meaningful & Beneficial for the child?
NO
Non Kin Adoption with Life
Story
What do kin/kith need to move
forward to permanency?
YES
Non Kin Adoption
Openness Order or
Agreement
Customary Care
Kin Adoption /
Customary Care
Kin or Kith Custody /
Customary Care
WHAT TO AIM FOR*
• A SYSTEM THAT LEARNS WHETHER CHILDREN ARE BEING HELPED AND HOW THEY HAVE
EXPERIENCED THE HELP.
• A SYSTEM FREE FROM ALL BUT ESSENTIAL CENTRAL PRESCRIPTION OVER PROFESSIONAL
PRACTICE BUT WITH CLEAR RULES ABOUT WHERE AND HOW TO COORDINATE TO PROTECT
CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE.
• A SYSTEM WHERE PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE IS INFORMED BY RESEARCH AND EVIDENCE,
COMPETENT JUDGEMENT INFORMING ACTION WHEN THE WORK IS TOO VARIED FOR RULES.
• A SYSTEM THAT EXPECTS ERRORS AND SO TRIES TO CATCH THEM QUICKLY.
• A SYSTEM THAT IS SOPHISTICATED ABOUT RISK.
*WITH THANKS TO EILEEN MUNRO (LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE)
LEADERSHIP SETS THE TONE*
• “YOU ARE NOT TO BLAME”
• DEVELOP A LEARNING CULTURE
• BEING COMFORTABLE WITH UNCERTAINTY. OTHERWISE WE LIVE IN A “CULTURE OF
FEAR”, BECOME OVERLY FOCUSED ON COMPLIANCE, AND “BLAME THE WORKER”
• APPEALING BUT FALSE CHARM OF HINDSIGHT BIAS
• CHANGE DOES NOT HAPPEN OVERNIGHT
*WITH THANKS TO EILEEN MUNRO (LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE)
LEADERSHIP
• CASTING AN INSPIRING SHARED VISION
• MODELING COMPASSIONATE AND CRITICAL SELF-AWARENESS
• FOSTERING A LEARNING ORGANIZATION
• PROMOTING REFLECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY
GATHERING DATA:
THE PROS AND CONS
GISSELE DAMIANI-TARABA, MSC.
OVERVIEW
• PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
• THE UP SIDE OF DATA
• DATA FROM BRANT FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES-FDGM STUDY
• THE DOWN SIDE OF DATA
• THE IMPORTANCE OF THE VOICES OF CLIENTS (FAMILIES AND YOUTH)
PERFORMANCE BASED MANAGEMENT
• IS A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT THROUGH AN ONGOING
PROCESS TO ESTABLISHING STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES; MEASURING
PERFORMANCE; COLLECTING, ANALYZING AND REVIEWING DATA; AND USING DATA TO
DRIVE IMPROVEMENT
• PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT IS THE COMPARISON OF ACTUAL LEVELS OF
PERFORMANCE TO PRE-ESTABLISHED TARGET LEVELS OF PERFORMANCE (ILES, CATHY).
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
• MORE AND MORE AGENCIES ARE BEING ASKED TO COLLECT DATA AND TO USE THAT
DATA TO ENSURE OUTCOMES ARE BEING MET.
• FOCUS IN CHILD WELFARE ON: SAFETY, PERMANENCY AND WELL BEING.
THE UPSIDE OF DATA
• INCREASED UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM: RACIALIZED DATA,
NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN CARE
• ASSISTS IN HELPING SECURE FUNDING FOR SPECIAL PROJECTS
• ASSIST IN MONITORING PROGRESS OF INITIATIVES-ARE WE WORKING TOWARDS OUR
GOALS
• DATA PLACED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF RESEARCH CAN BE REALLY HELPFUL-COMBINED
KNOWLEDGE
DATA GATHERING AT BRANT
• BALANCED SCORECARD
• PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
• FLOW SERVICE REPORTS
• WORKLOAD
• PROGRAM EVALUATIONS-FGDM ANALYSIS
FGDM INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH
• LACK OF LONG TERM STUDIES
• CONFLICTING FINDINGS-NO DIFFERENCE, CLIENTS SAY IT WAS HELPFUL
• LACK OF FIDELITY AFFECTING GENERALIZABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION (FGC, FGDM)
• ISSUES AROUND CAS WILLINGNESS TO CARRY OUT PLANS/RELINQUISH POWER
• VOICES OF CHILDREN-LACK THEREOF
• PROMISING PRACTICE
FGDM STATS (2005-2014)-BRANT FACS
• 488 REFERRALS TO FGDM
• AVERAGE NUMBER PREPARED PER FGDM: 25
• AVERAGE NUMBER ATTEND PER FGDM: 21
• TOTAL FGDM’S (2003-2014): 242
• AVERAGE TIME BETWEEN REFERRAL AND FGDM
• 2005-2009: 3-4 MONTHS
• 2010: 6 MONTHS
• 2011: 4-6 MONTHS
• 2012: 10 MONTHS
• 2013: 3-4 MONTHS
STUDY QUESTION
• WE WANTED TO KNOW: ARE THE PLANS DEVELOPED BY THE FGDM FAMILIES MORE
SUCCESSFUL, OVER TIME (AS EVIDENCED BY DECREASED TIME IN SERVICE AND MEETING
OF OUTCOMES) COMPARED TO PLANS DEVELOPED BY THE STAFF ALONE?
• FACTORS WE WERE INTERESTED IN:
• TIME (LENGTH OF TIME IN SYSTEM)
• SUCCESS OF PLANS (WERE OBJECTIVES MET AS EVIDENCED BY CARE PLANS-DIRECT
CONNECTION)
• WHETHER THE FGDM CONFERENCE OCCURRED OR NOT
• COMPARISON GROUP (CONTROL GROUP)
VARIABLES
• We had a database on ALL referrals that had occurred
dating back to 2009-2013. Our system migrated data
from an old system so had only from 2007 on.
• We only included data from 2009-2011 so that we could
look in 2012-2013 what had happened to cases
• Cases referred to FGDM conferencing were categorized
into 3 groups: refused, referred (wait list) and occurred.
VARIABLES
• WE HAD TO ACQUIRE LENGTH OF TIME FROM CASE FILES (EFORMS)
• WHETHER THE PLAN WAS SUCCESSFUL OR NOT WAS DETERMINED FROM THE PLANS OF
CARE FROM FAMILIES AND FROM FGDM PLANS
• DATA HAD TO BE IMPORTED AND MANUALLY INPUTTED
• NEW RESEARCH ASSISTANT WAS BLINDED TO FGDM/CONTROL STUDY HOWEVER,
COMPLETE BLINDING WAS NOT POSSIBLE DUE TO DIFFERENCES IN LOCATION OF PLANS
INFORMATION ON ANALYSIS
• WE STARTED WITH SOME PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS TO SEE IF THE DATA INDICATED SOME
POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIPS (BIVARIATE ANALYSIS)
• THEN DECIDED THAT SURVIVAL ANALYSIS (KAPLAN MEIR CURVE) WAS THE BEST ANALYSIS
THAT WOULD ENABLE US TO LOOK AT OUTCOME (YES/NO), BY LENGTH OF TIME (TIME IN
SYSTEM) BY WHETHER THE INTERVENTION (FGDM OCCURRED OR DID NOT OCCUR)
• WE LUMPED THE CONTROL GROUPS (REFUSED/REFERRED) TO STRENGTH THE POWER OF
OUR ANALYSIS TO DETECT SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES SHOULD THERE BE ANY
DATA…MINOR PROBLEM?
FGDM Outcomes (n=118)
26%
Occured
56%
18%
Refused
Referred
DATA…MINOR PROBLEM?
• THE FGDM TEAM DID NOT RECORD THE ID NUMBER FROM THE 2009 CASES WHO REFUSED
TO BE INVOLVED WITH FGDM (N=12)
• WE HAD TO REMOVE ABOUT HALF OF ALL REFUSALS FROM 2009 FROM THE ANALYSIS AS
WE COULD NOT GET INFORMATION ABOUT THEM REGARDING PLAN AND LENGTH OF
TIME IN THE SYSTEM
• FINAL NUMBER WAS 106 CASES USED FOR MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS. SOME ANALYSIS
INCLUDES ALL CASES
DATA
FGDM outcomes (n=106)
38%
occurred
did not occur
62%
Reasons for Refusals/Referred (n=36, 15 missing)
12
5
4
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
Series1
1
1
RESULTS-PRIMARY BOTTOM LINE MET?
Was the primary bottom line met? (n=99)
33%
No
67%
Yes
Goals of Plans for Children/Families
PERMANENCY FOR CHILDREN
1
CHILD TO REMAIN IN CARE UNTIL AGES OUT
1
2
ACCESS/COMMUNICATION WITH FAMILY
3
NO FDGM FILES FOUND
IMPROVE PARENTING SKILLS
1
MEET REGULARLY WITH CAS TO ENSURE CHILDREN ARE SAFE
1
MOTHER TO ADDRESS MENTAL HEALTH
1
5
EXTENDED FAMILY TO SUPPORT MOTHER
EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
SAFETY PLAN TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITH SUPPORTS
1
2
8
CHILD TO LIVE IN CAS APPROVED HOME/IN CARE
3
CAS APPROVED KIN CAREGIVERS
CO-PARENTING FOR CHILD
2
19
CAREGIVER FOR CHILD OTHER THAN MOTHER
29
STABLE HOME ENVIRONMENT
10
CAREGIVERS WILL MEET CHILD NEEDS
10
REUNIFICATION
Series2
Series1
Was outcome 1 met over time? (n=99)
No
41%
Yes
59%
No
Yes
RESULTS-MEAN LENGTH OF TIME AND PLANS
• THE MEAN NUMBER OF DAYS IN THE SYSTEM, 1227 DAYS OR ABOUT 3.3 YEARS.
• AVERAGE NUMBER OF PLANS DEVELOPED: 4.1
RESULTS-BIVARIATE ANALYSIS
• THERE WERE NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHIC
INFORMATION (AGE OF CAREGIVER, AGE OF CHILD) AND WHETHER FGDM OCCURRED OR
DID NOT OCCUR OR WHETHER THE OUTCOME WAS MET.
• THIS IS A GREAT FINDING AS IT INDICATES THE CONTROL GROUP IS NOT DIFFERENT FROM
THE TREATMENT GROUP ON VARIABLES RELATED TO THE OUTCOME.
• OTHER VARIABLES WERE ALSO NOT FOUND TO BE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT (SUCH AS
COURT CASES, PHASE OF CASE, ELIGIBILITY SPECTRUM, NUMBER OF TIMES IN CARE) BY
FGDM OR OUTCOME MET.
RESULTS-BIVARIATE ANALYSIS
Mean number of days in the system
• There was a borderline,
Mean
statistically significant
relationship between
number of days in the
system and whether the
FGDM occurred, was
refused or referred
(p=0.05)
1362.2273
1204.4545
967.3448
Occured
Refused
Referred
•
• THERE WAS ALSO A BORDERLINE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
WHETHER THE PRIMARY OUTCOME WAS MET AND WHETHER THE FAMILY HAD FGDM, OR DID
NOT (P=0.08)
Wast the primary outcome
met?
14
12
REFERRED
10
REFUSED
1
42
OCCURED
20
0
10
20
Yes
30
No
40
50
SURVIVAL ANALYSIS-RESULTS
•
The survival model was not
statistically significant
•
(p=0.98) level
•
A similar analysis looking at the
shorter term outcome was also
not significant (p=0.582)
SURVIVAL ANALYSIS-RESULTS
• POSSIBLE REASONS FOR LACK OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE?
• REMOVED REFUSALS DECREASED POWER IN FINDING STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
(NOT ENOUGH N TO DO SURVIVAL)
• REASONS FOR REFUSAL WERE DUE TO HAVING ANOTHER METHOD OF
COLLABORATIVE DECISION MAKING SUCH AS SIGNS OF SAFETY CONFERENCING
• CASES TOO LONG/ALREADY DECIDED
FOCUS GROUPS
• N=3 FAMILIES
• PARENTS REPORTED THAT CAS WORKERS WERE ALREADY COMING TO FDGM MEETINGS
WITH SET PLAN
• CASES WERE BEING REPORTED TOO LATE IN THE GAME, WHEN THEY RAN OUT OF OTHER
OPTIONS
• FAMILIES DID FEEL HEARD AND FELT THE PROCESS WAS GOOD
NEXT STEPS
• IMPERATIVE TO EXAMINE THE OUTCOMES OF THE PLANS TO SEE IF FAMILIES ARE
COMPLYING WITH PLANS AND TO SEE IF THE PLANS ARE LEADING TO BETTER OUTCOMES
FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
• IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT LONG TERM EFFECTS OF PLANS DEVELOPED BY FAMILIES
COMPARED TO THOSE NOT DEVELOPED IN COLLABORATION WITH FAMILIES ESPECIALLY
AS IT PERTAINS TO GENERALIZABILITY OF FINDINGS
• FOCUSING ON REFERRING CASES TO FDGM EARLIER IN THE LIFE OF A CASE
• PLAN TO REPEAT THIS ANALYSIS IN THE FUTURE WITH A BIGGER CONTROL GROUP NOW
THAT WE ARE TRACKING IDS FOR ALL CASES. PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING FROM
CONTROL/TREATMENT GROUP WILL BE ATTEMPTED WITH LARGER SAMPLE SIZE
THE DOWNSIDE OF DATA
• LACK OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ABOUT HOW LIMITED THE
DATE WE COLLECT IS
• NEED TO DIG A LITTLE DEEPER
THE DOWNSIDE TO DATA
• TIE TO FUNDING AND MANIPULATION OF DATA
• UNFAIR COMPARISONS BETWEEN AGENCIES
• PREDICTIVE ANALYTICS
• FOCUSING ON EASY TO MEASURE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INSTEAD OF RIGHT
OUTCOMES
• WHO DETERMINES THE “RIGHT” OUTCOMES: WHAT DOES PERMANENCY LOOK LIKE FOR
CHILDREN? WHAT DO THEY SAY MAKES THEM FEEL SAFE?
QA BRANT MOTTO:
IF YOU WANT TO KNOW IF THE SERVICES YOU ARE OFFERING TO CLIENTS
IS MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN THEIR LIVES, ASK THEM!
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE VOICES OF CLIENTS
• IMPORTANCE TO COMBINE QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES WITH QUALITATIVE ONES (TO
GET “ESSENCE”)
• CAN GET A LOT MORE INFORMATION WITH QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES BUT CAN
UNDERSTAND LIVED EXPERIENCE MORE WITH QUALITATIVE APPROACHES
• WHY IS THIS SO CRITICAL? RESEARCH ON RESILIENCY SUGGESTS THAT CLIENTS DO BEST
WHEN THEY HAVE A SAY IN THE SERVICES THEY RECEIVE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS
MANDATED OR NOT (UNGAR, 2015)
LISTENING TO VOICES OF FAMILIES AND YOUTH
• FOCUS GROUPS
• ANONYMOUS SURVEYS
• YOUTH-LED PROJECTS (LISTEN TO ME)
• YOUTH AND FAMILIES IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS (BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CLIENT BASED
COMMITTEES)
LISTEN TO ME (VIDEO)
• YOUTH LED PROJECT (ROGERT HARTS LADDER OF YOUTH VOICE)
• N=10 YOUTH GAVE INFORMATION ON THEIR EXPERIENCES IN CARE VIA VIDEO STORIES
AND SOME ANONYMOUSLY
• YOUTH WANTED TO HELP OTHER YOUTH HAVE A VOICE AND SAY
• YOUTH SPOKE ABOUT BEING LGBTQ AND IN CARE, BEING BULLIED AND ABOUT IN CARE
EXPERIENCES (WHAT THEY WANTED WORKERS TO KNOW)
• 7 THEMES EMERGED FROM VIDEOS: LISTEN TO US AND BELIEVE US; KEEP US INFORMED
AND BE HONEST; INVOLVE US IN DECISIONS; SUPPORT US; KEEP US CONNECTED TO
FAMILY AND TRADITIONS; IGNITE OUR PASSIONS-ORDINARY MAGIC; DON’T GIVE UP ON
US
“NOTHING
ABOUT ME
WITHOUT
ME”
FGDM in Child Welfare
Strengthening
Children’s Participatory Rights Resilience & Social Agency
MARTHA LARA, MSW, RSW
FGDM CHILDREN’S SOCIAL INCLUSION & PARTICIPATION
FGDM is an inclusive, rights base process to develop families & children’s
participation in decision making (DM) in the Child welfare System( CWS).
Children are the reason, the center & Heart Beat of FGDM
The process is about them: their stories, their past, present & future.
The decisions made in FGDM are about them
UNCRC Children 0 to 18
CHALLENGES TO CHILDREN’S PARTICIPATION IN FGDM
Children’s attendance is avoided or unrealizable
Children’s participation in decision making is limited
There is a tendency to tokenistic participation:
Children’s social exclusion & their lack of participation in the CWS are
structural & institutional challenges faced by FGDM to promote a
genuine and effective participation of the children in the process.
CHILDREN’S SOCIAL EXCLUSION & LACK OF PARTICIPATION IN CWS
Children’s social exclusion: refers to the multidimensional nature of
poverty and disadvantage. Social Exclusion is fundamentally about lack of
connectedness and participation.
Children involved in the CWS are from families/communities that reflect
indicators of social exclusion. Low income, racial and ethnical discrimination,
immigrant status & lack of social participation.
They also had experienced exposure to harm including abuse, violence,
addictions, disengagement from school and mental health issues.
CHILDREN’S SOCIAL EXCLUSION & LACK OF PARTICIPATION IN CWS
The CWS separates children
from family, friends and the
familiar, and perpetuates or
recreates their social exclusion.
White, 2008
PROTECTIONISM & DECISION MAKING IN THE CWS
Protectionism emphasizes the children’s image of vulnerability/helplessness &
victimization. It prioritizes their immediate safety only. It regards children as
objects to be protected rather than as subjects of rights
Decision making in the CWS is a child unfriendly space. Workers, judges, and
lawyers, rather than family or children themselves, are deciding their lives. In case
conferences & plan of care reviews children feel disempowered, intimidated, bored
& alienated.
The lack of children’s participation in the CWS, is also a form of children’s social
exclusion that affects particularly children of color who are disproportionately
represented in the system
CHILDREN’S RIGHTS: PROTECTION - PROVISION - PARTICIPATION
The UNCRC recognizes the children as rights holders and must therefore grant
them protection, provision of services, and effective possibilities for participation.
Bonvin & Stoecklin, 2014
The Universal right of children “to be part of every decision that affects them” is
granted by the article 12 of the UNCRC and “applies to all children in all countries
without exception”
Protection & Provision can improve when children’s participation is fostered. This
in turn only happens if children’s agency is acknowledged Freeman 2007: 18
It is the combination of rights that allows the children’s well-being in the present
and their development in the future
FGDM & CHILDREN’S RESILIENCE, SOCIAL AGENCY &
PARTICIPATORY RIGHTS
• Children involved in the CWS are resilient survivors, who seek
overcome adversity and they are perceptive, cautious & brave
• Children are complete social actors who are constantly making
decisions. In their interactions with adults and other children they
develop social skills to negotiate their attempts to gain control of
their life . Green, 2015:329
• Children’s rights become effective only when their holders
(children) are put in a position where they can actively use and
transform them.
.
FGDM & CHILDREN’S RESILIENCE, SOCIAL AGENCY &
PARTICIPATORY RIGHTS
Resilience not only depend on the child characteristics but is greatly
Influenced by process and interactions arising from the family and the
wider environment.
The ability to exercise agency requires access to family and community
networks that will strengthen children and youth connectedness Barn 2010
as well as social opportunities to practice participation.
Effective implementation of participatory rights requires the
complementarity between individual skills & social opportunities
FGDM & CHILDREN’S RIGHTS, RESILIENCE & SOCIAL AGENCY
Social Opportunities Family and Community Networks
Children’s negotiation and construction of a positive identities
requires safe and secure connections; finding social
opportunities to test out identities; and building a sense of
agency
Feeling included and being able to exercise agency involves a sense
of belonging and an ability to enact citizenship. It requires being
part of social networks and meaningful activities” Munforod & Senders 2015
FGDM & CHILDREN’S RIGHTS, RESILIENCE & SOCIAL AGENCY
Social Opportunities - Family and Community Networks
Children
Participation
Rights
FGDM
Family & Community
Networks
Children/Youth’s
Participation in
decision making
about them
Social
Agency
Resilience
CLOSING
FGDM RESOURCES
• WEBSITE: FGDM.ORG
• GUIDELINES FOR FAMILY GROUP DECISION MAKING IN CHILD WELFARE
(HTTP://WWW.UCDENVER.EDU/ACADEMICS/COLLEGES/MEDICALSCHOOL/DEPARTMENTS/PE
DIATRICS/SUBS/CAN/FGDM/WHAT_IS_FGDM/DOCUMENTS/FGDM%20GUIDELINES.PDF)
• FGC/FGDM COORDINATOR MANUAL FOR ONTARIO
(HTTP://WWW.GEORGEHULLCENTRE.ON.CA/DOCUMENTS/FGC_MANUAL_FINAL_DIGITAL_V5
.PDF)
WWW.BRANTFACS.CA
Marilee Sherry, MSW, RSW
Manager of FGDM Team
[email protected]
519-753-8681 ext. 491
Gissele Taraba, MSC, Health Research
Methods
Manager of Quality Assurance
[email protected]
519-753-8681 ext. 468
Jacquie Scatcherd, MSW, RSW
Director of Service
[email protected]
519-753-8681 ext. 253
Martha Lara, MSW, RSW
Coordinator FGDM
[email protected]
519-720-9538 ext. 492