|
|
Family Group Decision Making
Family Group Decision Making Utilization
Agencies approach family group decision making as either an organizational change agent or as a strength-based, family-centered practice. While it is possible to isolate family group decision making for a time, eventually the need for family-centered practice becomes an irresistible force, and the lack of family-centered service will result in poor utilization.
One of the initial decisions that agencies must make is how to implement family group decision making. Some agencies elect to be direct providers. Since the referring worker cannot serve as the coordinator or facilitator, the agency must decide whether to have specialized staff or whether some or all workers should be trained to provide coordination and facilitation services for their colleagues' cases. Other agencies have elected to contract out responsibility for coordination and facilitation. The responsibility of case carrying workers is to inform families, make referrals, participate in meetings and monitor the plans. However, the workers are relieved of the time-intensive responsibilities of coordination. Occasionally, there is a joint approach to facilitation of the family group decision making meetings are with one facilitator from the public agency and one from the community agency.
When an agency approaches family group decision making as an organizational change agent, the agency generally uses a development and implementation committee. The committee is composed of agency and community members and is charged with developing the process for the agency and community. Experience indicates that the method can be powerful in developing community support for implementation, transforming agency and community relationships and mobilizing community resources to support family plans.
The program development model is used by some agencies that cite a desire to have more agency investment and a concern for the time investment necessary in using a committee. The approach also may be used with contract agencies by utilizing a small program development model which includes representatives from both the public and the contract agency. The program development model has the advantage of being more direct and requiring less time and fewer resources than the committee approach.
Regardless of what model or what development approach agencies use, often reports are of disappointing utilization. This includes agencies that have invested considerable resources in training all staff as well as smaller agencies with more modest investments. Disappointment often arises from unrealistic expectations about how quickly family group decision making is embraced.
Organizations may succumb to the temptation of antithetical responses. While families are invited to participate, referring workers may be required through mandates, policies and procedures, or court orders to offer or provide family group decision making. However, organizations may have overlooked some critical concerns in developing their practice.
One of the most important considerations is why the organization has decided to implement family group decision making. Implementation may be a strategy to move the organization toward family-centered practice. Critical examination of the appropriateness of the fit and organizational philosophy, practices and culture must be made. One manifestation is the agency vision, mission and values. If the agency's vision, mission and values are significantly different from the principles of family group decision making, the agency must make a self-assessment of their ability to embrace the practice.
Beyond the agency is the community context. Community beliefs, standards and expectations about families and the agencies that serve them can promote or impede implementation of family group decision making. The current climate regarding child welfare agencies and relationships with community stakeholders such as the juvenile court can lead agencies to reconsider their decision or implementation strategy.
An area often overlooked is the impact of family group decision making on practitioners. There is often an assumption that because family group decision making reflects social work values, practitioners will eagerly embrace it. However, in most implementation approaches, the majority of workers serve a referring function and participate in a meeting coordinated and facilitated by "specialized" workers. Some agencies train coordinators and facilitators from many classifications, which lead to challenges about professionalization. Concerns emerge from the issue about liability with increased litigation directed toward social workers.
Another concrete concern is resources. Issues about overtime, expectations of working outside of "normal" business hours and caseload sizes need to be addressed. Resources are also needed to meet the needs of family group decision making such as family-friendly meeting places, funds for transporting and housing family members from other areas for the meeting and food for the meeting.
Agencies need to attend to the concerns of workers in a parallel process with family group decision making principles and match the strategy and implementation approach to the needs of the community, agency workers and families. Inclusive planning with concrete responses and creative solutions mirror family group decision making practices at the agency level.
|
|
