IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v83y2017icp255-263.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Family group conferencing in Dutch child welfare: Which families are most likely to organize a family group conference?

Author

Listed:
  • Dijkstra, Sharon
  • Creemers, Hanneke E.
  • Asscher, Jessica J.
  • Deković, Maja
  • Stams, Geert Jan J.M.

Abstract

Aim of the present study was to identify which families involved in child welfare are willing to organize a Family Group conference (FGc; phase 1) and which are most likely to complete a conference (phase 2). Data were used of a Dutch randomized controlled trial (N=229). First, the proportion of families willing to organize an FGc and actually completing a conference was determined. Then, for each of the phases, reasons for dropout according to parents, child welfare workers and FGC-coordinators were assessed and categorized and family characteristics were linked to completion rate. Results showed that 60% of the families (137 families) were willing to organize an FGc and 27% (62 families) eventually completed a conference. Reasons for dropout were lack of motivation, high-conflict divorce situations and need for other professional care. Broken and/or newly formed families were less likely to complete a conference, whereas families with indications for child maltreatment were more likely to complete a conference. Future research is needed to examine other possible explanations for the relatively low success rate, such as attitude of child welfare workers towards FGC and the lack of understanding of the aim of FGC by child welfare workers and families.

Suggested Citation

  • Dijkstra, Sharon & Creemers, Hanneke E. & Asscher, Jessica J. & Deković, Maja & Stams, Geert Jan J.M., 2017. "Family group conferencing in Dutch child welfare: Which families are most likely to organize a family group conference?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 255-263.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:83:y:2017:i:c:p:255-263
    DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.11.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740917307417
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.11.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van der Put, Claudia E. & Assink, Mark & Stams, Geert Jan J.M., 2016. "Predicting relapse of problematic child-rearing situations," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 288-295.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vial, Annemiek & Assink, Mark & Stams, Geert Jan J.M. & van der Put, Claudia, 2020. "Safety assessment in child welfare: A comparison of instruments," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    2. Duindam, Hanne M. & Vial, Annemiek & Bouwmeester-Landweer, Merian B.R. & van der Put, Claudia E., 2023. "Differences and similarities between mothers’ and fathers’ risk factors for child maltreatment," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    3. Vial, Annemiek & van der Put, Claudia & Stams, Geert Jan J.M. & Assink, Mark, 2019. "The content validity and usability of a child safety assessment instrument," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    4. Annemiek Vial & Mark Assink & Geert Jan Stams & Claudia Van der Put, 2021. "Child Safety Assessment: Do Instrument-Based Decisions Concur with Decisions of Expert Panels?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-22, May.
    5. Reekers, Sari E. & Dijkstra, Sharon & Stams, Geert Jan J.M. & Asscher, Jessica J. & Creemers, Hanneke E., 2018. "Signs of effectiveness of signs of safety? – A pilot study," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 177-184.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:83:y:2017:i:c:p:255-263. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.