The Child and Family Team (CFT) meeting is a foundation of service planning within the child welfare system, aiming for shared decision-making among families, caregivers, youth, and providers. This study compared perceptions of CFT meetings between family and professional members using data from anonymous post-CFT meeting surveys (n = 1,267) from a large county child welfare system. The analysis focused on CFT voice, process, role, and meeting outcomes, assessing whether voice, process, and role predicted outcomes. Findings indicate significantly less favorable perceptions among family members of voice (t (1244) = 5.54, p < .001) and process (t (1241) = 5.41, p < .001) compared to professionals. Additionally, voice and process significantly predicted action plan satisfaction (F (3, 1226) = 1,406.54, p < .001, R2 = .775), and voice, process, and role significantly predicted the extent to which meetings met behavioral health needs (F (3, 1227) = 830.78, p < .001, R2 = .670). The study discusses structural and interpersonal factors that may hinder family participation and strategies for promoting equitable collaboration in child welfare CFT meetings.
AhnH.HartzelS.ShawT. (2018). Participants’ satisfaction with family involvement meetings: Implications for child welfare practice. Research on Social Work Practice, 28(8), 952–963. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731516666328
2.
AhnH.XuY.WilliamsK. A.Parks-BournK.WilliamsS.ConwayD. (2022). Family team decision meeting and child welfare service disparities: The influence of race and poverty. Children and Youth ServicesReview, 143, Article 106705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106705
AugsbergerA. (2014). Strategies for engaging foster care youth in permanency planning family team conferences. Children and Youth Services Review, 43, 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.04.015
5.
BerzinS. C.ThomasK. L.CohenE. (2007). Assessing model fidelity in two family group decision-making programs: Is this child welfare intervention being implemented as intended?Journal of Social Service Research, 34(2), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1300/j079v34n02_05
6.
Bundy-FazioliK.Briar-LawsonK.HardimanE. R. (2009). A qualitative examination of power between child welfare workers and parents. British Journal of Social Work, 39(8), 1447–1464. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcn038
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2016). Family engagement: Partnering with families to improve child welfare outcomes. Child welfare information gateway. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f-fam-engagement/
10.
CramptonD. S.CreaT. M.Abramson-MaddenA.UsherC. L. (2008). Challenges of street-level child welfare reform and technology transfer: The case of team decision-making. Families in Society, 89(4), 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.3823
11.
CreaT.BerzinS. (2009). Family Involvement in Child Welfare Decision-Making: Strategies and Research On Inclusive Practices. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 3(3), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548730903129970
12.
DarlingtonY.HealyK.YellowleesJ.BoslyF. (2012). Parents' perceptions of their participation in mandated family group meetings. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(2), 331–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.10.030
13.
EstefanL. F.CoulterM. L.VandeWeerdC. L.ArmstrongM.GorskiP. (2012). Receiving mandated therapeutic services: Experiences of parents involved in the child welfare system. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(12), 2353–2360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.09.002
14.
GeigerJ. M.SchelbeL. (2021). Child and family engagement in child welfare practice. The Handbook on Child Welfare Practice.
15.
HealyK.DarlingtonY.YellowleesJ. (2012). Family participation in child protection practice: An observational study of family group meetings. Child & Family Social Work, 17(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2011.00767.x
16.
HollandS.ScourfieldJ.O'NeillS.PithouseA. (2005). Democratising the family and the state? The case of family group conferences in child welfare. Journal of Social Policy, 34(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047279404008268
17.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
18.
KimH.DrakeB. (2018). Child maltreatment risk as a function of poverty and race/ethnicity in the USA. International Journal of Epidemiology, 47(3), 780–787. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyx280
19.
KimH.DrakeB.Jonson-ReidM. (2018). An examination of class-based visibility bias in national child maltreatment reporting. Children and Youth Services Review, 85, 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.12.019
20.
KimJ.PierceB. J.JaggersJ. W.ImburgiaT. M.HallJ. A. (2016). Improving child welfare services with family team meetings: A mixed methods analysis of caseworkers’ perceived challenges. Children and Youth Services Review, 70, 261–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.09.036
21.
KimJ.TrahanM.BellamyJ.HallJ. A. (2019). Advancing the innovation of family meeting models: The role of teamwork and parent engagement in improving permanency. Children and Youth Services Review, 100, 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.02.039
22.
LawsonM.PielM. H.SimonM. (2020). Child maltreatment during the COVID-19 pandemic: Consequences of parental job loss on psychological and physical abuse towards children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 110(Pt 2), Article 104709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104709
23.
LindE. A.Van den BosK. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 181–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-3085(02)24006-x
24.
NeyT.StoltzJ. A.MaloneyM. (2013). Voice, power and discourse: Experiences of participants in family group conferences in the context of child protection. Journal of Social Work, 13(2), 184–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017311410514
Palamaro-MunsellE.CookJ. R.KilmerR. P.VishnevskyT.StrompolisM. (2011). The impact of child and family team composition on wraparound fidelity: Examining links between team attendance consistency and functioning. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20(6), 771–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-011-9444-5
27.
Putnam-HornsteinE.NeedellB. (2011). Predictors of child protective service contact between birth and age five: An examination of California's 2002 birth cohort. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(8), 1337–1344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.04.006
28.
RockhillA. (2021). Parents' experiences of family team meetings in child welfare. Child & Family Social Work, 26(3), 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12818
29.
SchmidJ. E.PollackS. (2009). Developing shared knowledge: Family group conferencing as a means of negotiating power in the child welfare system. Practice: Social Work in Action, 21(3), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/09503150902807615
30.
SchreierA.HorwitzM.MarshallT.BraceyJ.CumminsM.KaufmanJ. S. (2019). Child and family team meeting characteristics and outcomes in a statewide system of care. American Journal of Community Psychology, 63(3–4), 487–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12323
31.
SmithB. D. (2008). Child welfare service plan compliance: Perceptions of parents and caseworkers. Families in Society, 89(4), 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.3818
32.
SmithB. D.DonovanS. E. (2003). Child welfare practice in organizational and institutional context. Social Service Review, 77(4), 541–563. https://doi.org/10.1086/378328
33.
XuY.AhnH.BrightC. L. (2017). Family involvement meetings: Engagement, facilitation, and child and family goals. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.05.026
