Family Unity Meetings: Decision Making and Placement Outcomes

Abstract

ABSTRACT The sample consisted of all families (747) who were invited to receive a Family Unity Meeting from a Public Child Welfare Agency in a large urban county. Data was derived from the review of agency case files. The design was a retrospective case review with an embedded prospective study. This study describes factors that distinguish between CPS clients who accept an invitation to participate in a Family Unity Meeting (FUM) and those clients who decline to participate. The meeting process is described, and logistic regression is used to identify variables that predicted successful outcomes FUM meetings. Families with reunification as a goal were the most likely cases to agree to participate followed by Voluntary and Permanency Planning cases. Cases with severe neglect were the least likely group to participate in a meeting process. Approximately nine people attended an average meeting. Maternal relatives were more likely to attend than paternal relatives. Empirical evidence was found to support the notion that FUM expands the notion of family. Only 38% of children were placed with a parent after a meeting, but 82% of children were placed with a family member. Children were not placed with either the parent or family if the social worker had placement as a goal before the meeting. Cases with permanency plans were also less likely to be placed with the family. Social workers were more likely to agree with a placement with relatives if they had a concern about parental drug abuse. Having a maternal aunt in attendance at the meeting was predictive of having a child placed with the family. Social workers and families stated concerns prior to the meeting diverged. Families were more concerned with economic and financial issues than were the social workers. Social workers were more concerned with child protective service issues (type of abuse, placement issues, etc.) and the behavior of the parent (substance abuse, mental health, etc.) than was the family. Paying attention to family issues such as finances may be a necessary precursor to families focusing on more complex matters like substance abuse or parenting practices. Placement outcomes were consistent with worker's goals stated before the meeting. If a social worker said they wanted to place a child with the family before the meeting, that placement was most likely the outcome of the meeting. Social workers may be guiding the decisions of the family. If this interpretation is correct then it raises questions about who makes decisions at the meeting. An alternative conclusion is that the social workers are good diagnosticians who know prior to the meeting if placement is necessary, and know what decisions the family will make.