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

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

3. 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

4. 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

5. Kids Central Family Connection Discretionary GrantsFamily Group Decision Making

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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)

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. Questions???