Objective:
The present review on FGC was carried out on behalf of the Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs from December 2013 to July 2014. The main objective was to provide an updated overview of the current knowledge base on FGC, from which the further development of FGC in Norway could benefit. This included reviewing the existing literature on the effects of, and experiences with, FGC on the one hand, and the identification of thematic areas that required new or further research on the other.
Method:
The review includes publications in English and in the Scandinavian languages, covering the countries in which FGC has been actively in use. The searches were based on an exhaustive and systematic examination of literature found in relevant databases (see http://www.kunnskapssenteret.no). The search included referee-based scientific journals, professional articles, dissertations, books. To obtain information on the participants’ experiences, we also searched for grey literature. Experts from several countries around the world were contacted to get up-to-date information on recent activities and publications. The searches were not subject to any time limit.
Results:
The knowledge base on the effects of FGC is weak. The strongest evidence based on methodologically sound studies is that FGC increases the likelihood for children to be placed in kinship care as opposed to public placements and adoption. Furthermore, FGC increases the likelihood of returning from care to either the parents or other family members. Singular research findings indicate that FGC facilitates the access to services beyond the Child Welfare Services (CWS) in the short term, but not in the long term. In addition, there are indications that FGC is used to a similar extent among families with a minority background as in other families. With regard to experiences with FGC it is difficult to draw any common conclusions, because most of the studies are based on small samples aimed at nuancing the participants’ experiences. Still, the majority of participants have made positive experiences with FGC. Factors that are appreciated the most by family members, and not least the children, include the relational and professional aspects of FGC processes. Research findings indicate two factors that are crucial for the functioning of FGC as intended: Firstly, all participants should be prepared for the specific procedures of the FGC meeting, including their own role. Secondly, coordinators need to maintain their central role in a qualitatively good way. The most negative experiences were related to the implementation (or lack) of the action plan developed by the FGC. The same thematic areas and challenges can be found in research and reports on the use of FGC in other services beyond CWS.
Conclusions:
The review first and foremost reveals the need for further research, which applies to most aspects of FGC. It also questions, however, the aims and ambitions for the use of FGC in CWS and other services, which cases or areas should be prioritised, and issues related to model fidelity. To allow for a continuous evaluation of FGC practices, the review recommends including such practices in the Norwegian national child welfare statistics, as well as the introduction of short evaluation forms that are to be filled out by all participants after having attended FGC. Finally, the importance of sound research on new areas for FGC within the Norwegian CWS is highlighted. This particularly applies to the use of FGC in acute cases and in the cases of residential placements.
