Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:49:56.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Family Group Conferencing in child protection: An evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2016

Chris Trotter  and
Rosemary Sheehan
Chris Trotter
Affiliation:
Department of Social Work Monash UniversityPO Box 197, Caulfield East, Vic 3145.
Rosemary Sheehan
Affiliation:
Department of Social Work Monash UniversityPO Box 197, Caulfield East, Vic 3145.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Family Group Conferencing (FGC) in child protection is a method of involving families in planning. This paper reports on a study undertaken in the Victorian child protection system, which examined (1) the extent to which the Victorian FGC program actually involves families in the planning process, (2) the extent to which FGC develops case plans which are appropriate, and (3) the extent to which FGC develops case plans which are sustained over time. Researchers observed 28 conferences and phone interviews were conducted with more than 100 participants including family members, staff members and representatives of non-government agencies providing placement and support services. The results suggest that FGC is more successful in involving family members in case planning than more traditional planning processes. Family members believe that FGC leads to more appropriate case plans which are more likely to be sustained. Child protection workers on the other hand believe that more appropriate case plans are developed in traditional planning meetings, rather than FGCs, and that case plans developed in traditional meetings are more likely to be sustained over time. Possible explanations for these findings are discussed, in particular that FGCs may be used for more difficult cases.

Type
Research Article
Information
Children Australia , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , 2000 , pp. 37 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Department of Human Services (1993) ‘Family Group Conferences in Protection and Care’, Program Document, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Hassall, I. (1996) ‘Origin and Development of Family Group Conferences’, in Hudson, et al, Family Group Conferences, Federation Press/Criminal Justice Press, NSW.Google Scholar
HMSO (1995) Child Protection-Messages From Research, HMSO Copyright Unit, London.Google Scholar
Hudson, J., Morris, A., Maxwell, G. & Galaway, B. (1996) Family Group Conferences, Federation Press/Criminal Justice Press, NSW.Google Scholar
LaSala, M. (1997) ‘Client satisfaction: consideration of correlates and response bias’, Families in Society, 78(1): 54–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, P. & Crow, G. (1998) Family Group Conferences in Child Welfare, Blackwell Science, London.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. (1996) ‘Research on Family Group Conferences in Child Welfare in New Zealand’ in Hudson, et al, Family Group Conferences, Federation Press/Criminal Justice Press, NSW.Google Scholar
Swain, P. & Ban, P. (1997) ‘Participation and partnership: family group conferencing in the Australian context’, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Lam, 19(1):35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trotter, C. (1996) ‘The Impact of Different Supervision Practices in Community Corrections’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 29(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trotter, C. (1999) Working with involuntary clients: A guide to practice, Allen & Unwin, St Leonards, NSW.Google Scholar
Trotter, C., Sheehan, R., Liddell, M., Strong, D. & Laragy, C. (1998) An Evaluation of the Implementation of Family Group Conferencing in Victoria, Department of Human Services, Melbourne.Google Scholar