Cost-effectiveness of Family Group Conferencing in child welfare: a controlled study

Sharon Dijkstra,Francisca J A Van Steensel,Jessica J Asscher,Maja Deković,Hanneke E Creemers,Geert Jan J M Stams

doi:10.1186/s12889-018-5770-5

Sharon Dijkstra, Francisca J A Van Steensel + Show 4 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5770-5

Copy DOI

Abstract

BackgroundThis study aimed to examine the short- and long term (cost-) effectiveness of Family Group Conferencing (FGC) compared to care as usual (CAU) in terms of improved child safety, empowerment and social support.MethodsA subgroup of a larger randomized controlled trial, comprising 69 families in child welfare (experimental group: n = 46; control group: n = 23), was included.ResultsNo additional effects of FGC on child safety, social support and only short-term positive effects on empowerment were found. There were no differences in costs between FGC and CAU. The chance for FGC to be cost-effective was small. For families who refused FGC, the FGC approach was more cost-effective than CAU, whereas it was less cost-effective for families that prepared or completed FGC.ConclusionsOverall, FGC is not (cost-)effective in improving child safety, empowerment and social support, but cost-effectiveness varies at different levels of FGC-completion.Trial registrationDutch Trial Register number NTR4320. Registered 17 December 2013.

Highlights

This study aimed to examine the short- and long term effectiveness of Family Group Conferencing (FGC) compared to care as usual (CAU) in terms of improved child safety, empowerment and social support
Since it has been argued that FGC contributes to improved child safety [5] and cost savings [6], it may be an attractive model for policymakers to embed in child welfare
With respect to the first aim of the study, we found that six as well as 12 months after a care plan was made, FGC was effective as CAU in reducing child maltreatment, which is in line with previous research [7, 8, 10]

Summary

Introduction

This study aimed to examine the short- and long term (cost-) effectiveness of Family Group Conferencing (FGC) compared to care as usual (CAU) in terms of improved child safety, empowerment and social support. The main difference with regular decision-making in child welfare is that the family and the extended network, instead of the child welfare worker and the family, are responsible for both making the plan as well as implementing the plan. This way, FGC aims to establish active responsibility and empowerment of the family and its network [4]. Since it has been argued that FGC contributes to improved child safety [5] and cost savings [6], it may be an attractive model for policymakers to embed in child welfare

Objectives

Methods

Discussion

Conclusion