1 / 15

Family Group Decision Making: Engaging, Encouraging, and Empowering Families to Succeed

Family Group Decision Making: Engaging, Encouraging, and Empowering Families to Succeed (FGDM-EEE) Family Connections- FGDM Kick-Off Conference November 15, 2011. Kids Central’s Background with FGDM and Family Engagement Strategies.

brie
Download Presentation

Family Group Decision Making: Engaging, Encouraging, and Empowering Families to Succeed

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Family Group Decision Making: Engaging, Encouraging, and Empowering Families to Succeed (FGDM-EEE) Family Connections- FGDM Kick-Off Conference November 15, 2011

  2. Kids Central’s Background with FGDM and Family Engagement Strategies • Began on a limited basis in 2005, primarily with families with community service referrals from CPI • Currently have neutral non case carrying facilitator of FGDM/FTC process available for families within prevention, diversion, reunification, and pre/post adoption services • FY2010-2011 evaluation results from families, their support networks and providers overwhelmingly believe the process was meaningful, practical, and produced viable plans. (97% of the families believe their plan is viable and 97% believe they will achieve it!) • Limited participation of potential referral sources resulting in fewer families having the benefit of FGDM • Limited capacity to provide follow-up care coordination and accountability for the implementation of family plan

  3. Goals for Demonstration Project Enhance current FGDM/Diversion Services by: • Offering FGDM to all families receiving diversion services • Providing families with follow-up assistance • Engaging pertinent service providers and informal support networks in family team meetings • Utilizing protective factors framework to enhance parental capacity • Proving additional training and intensive support for facilitators and case coordinators • Assessing fidelity to assure uniform application of FGDM model

  4. Kids Central Family Connection Discretionary GrantsFamily Group Decision Making

  5. Evaluation Design • Quasi-experimental design (comparison site: Child & Family Connections, West Palm, FL) for CFSR outcomes • Pre-Post design for all other outcomes • Cost Analysis Study will also be conducted

  6. CFSR Measures • Revised since original proposal • Safety Outcome 2 (items 3 & 4) • Services to family to protect child(ren) in the home and prevent removal or re-entry into foster care • Risk assessment and safety management • Permanency Outcomes 1 & 2 • Foster care re-entries (after diversion case closure) • The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children • Well-Being Outcome 1 (items 17 & 18) • Needs and services of child, parents, and foster parents • Child and family involvement in case planning

  7. Caregiver Outcomes and Measures • Enhance parental and partner knowledge about protective factors and the health safety, and well-being of children (Measure: FRIENDS Protective Factors Survey) • Improve engagement of families, particularly fathers and paternal relatives (Measure: FDGM case record data) • Increased successful completion of Individualized Care Action plan (ICA) (Measure: FDGM case record data)

  8. Other Key Evaluation Areas • Fidelity of Training • American Humane Association FDGM: Train the Trainers (Certification) • Training of FGMM Facilitators and Coordinators (fidelity to AHA training and mastery of content) • Fidelity of Implementation • Adherence to FGDM model / training • Adherence to FGDM-related policies and procedures

  9. Start Up Challenges • Receiving appropriate referrals to the FGDM process, especially families willing to participate voluntarily • Creating enthusiastic buy-in from community partners and pertinent others • Getting all appropriate participants to the table at a time and place convenient for the family • Developing skilled staff: facilitators, case coordinators, and fidelity assessors • Gaining the understanding of system providers that it is a valuable process, not one they "have" to refer to

  10. Start Up Challenges (continued) • New data entry and data tracking related to diversion cases • IRB - determining best strategy for  IRB approval • Obtaining, reviewing and integrating all required assessment tools into final evaluation protocols; including  • Pre/Post training instruments, and fidelity tools - fidelity of training and fidelity of implementation in the field • Appropriate evaluation preparation with the control site

  11. Similarities • Use of Statewide SACWSIS System to track CFSR outcome measures • Emphasize protective factors/strength based individualized family plans • Refer families to support services • Conduct home visits as called for in ICA • Provide FGDM formal training, coaching, and mentoring • Establish and strengthen community partnerships to sustain FGDM • Enhance parental protective factors • Improve family engagement, especially fathers and paternal relatives

  12. Differences • Families who participate in FGDM are subjects in a recent child abuse investigation resulting from a call to the hotline, but are diverted from the formal child protection system as voluntary participants in FGDM, to develop and implement their Individualized Course of Action Plan • Families are assigned a care coordinator who advocates for, holds family accountable for successful participation in the Individual Course of Action Plan • FGDM data is captured in an automated system that is independent of the State SACWSIS System but is linked to the SACWSIS System via a data extract process

  13. Differences (continued) • Using the Center for Social Policy and FRIENDS National Resource Center Protective Factor framework for the FGDM process and follow-up services to families, using the Protective Factor pre/post survey to measure increases in parental protective factors. • Families reside primarily in a large rural area (5 counties in central Florida) and in all 5 counties family income is less that the Florida average of $47,804 (2008). • % of families who participate successfully in the diversion process (FGDM and Action Plan) is tracked • There is a structured process to assess fidelity to FGDM model

  14. Questions???

More Related