What is the 5 step family model?

Quick overview: family group decision making in a nutshell

Family group decision making is a facilitated, family-led process that follows five clear phases to reach family-authored plans for child safety and care, according to government and major child-welfare guidance Child Welfare Information Gateway overview.

This short guide uses concise steps and practical tasks so practitioners can see how preparation, clear briefings, private family time, decision-making and follow-up connect in practice Ministry of Social Development guidance.

The model is often called family group conferencing or family group decision conferencing in different systems. It is used most commonly in child welfare and has been adapted in other sectors.

Definition and core principles of family group decision making

At its core, family group decision making centers on family-led planning and a neutral facilitator who supports but does not direct the family, according to central practice descriptions MSD overview.

The neutral facilitator helps design the meeting, ensures clear ground rules and protects private family time while allowing professionals to share factual information about risks and services Family Rights Group explanation (see research Family Group Conferences research).

Typical participants include the child where appropriate, parents, extended family, chosen community supports and relevant professionals. Inclusion is based on voluntary agreement and informed consent, and parties may decline attendance.

Family-led planning means the family develops options and a preferred plan. The facilitator ensures the family’s choices are documented and that professionals clarify constraints, rather than making decisions for the family Child Welfare Information Gateway overview.

The five-step family model – quick step-by-step summary

Below are the five steps used in most practice guides: preparation; information sharing; private family time and collaborative brainstorming; choosing solutions; and implementation with monitoring and follow-up.

Each step has a specific purpose. Preparation brings the right people together and sets expectations. Information sharing ensures the family has clear facts. Private family time gives relatives space to craft options. Choosing solutions records agreed actions. Implementation confirms follow-through and review.

These phases are typically sequential but may loop back if new facts emerge during review. The labels vary slightly across programs, but the functional five-step flow is widely recognized in guidance documents Child Welfare Information Gateway overview.

Preparation sets the agenda and identifies supports. Information sharing clarifies risks and services. Private family time supports options development. Choosing solutions documents responsibilities. Implementation creates a schedule for monitoring and review.

Step 1 – Preparation: mapping participants, logistics and consent

Preparation starts with stakeholder mapping. Facilitators identify extended family members, community supports and professionals who should be invited and note contact roles and availability Child Welfare Information Gateway overview.

Outreach includes explaining the purpose of the meeting, clarifying consent and asking who the family wants present. Early conversations help set realistic expectations about what the meeting can and cannot change.

Logistics cover venue choice, timing, travel support, interpreter needs and accessibility. Facilitators should assess safety risks and plan measures where in-person or remote attendance raises concerns Family Rights Group guidance.

Preparatory meetings with professionals and with the family are a standard practice. These sessions review available services, necessary factual checks and how information will be shared at the convening MSD practice guidance.

Step 2 – Information sharing: clear, non-technical briefings

Professionals provide a clear, non-technical briefing that sets out the concerns, relevant facts and the options the system can offer, guidance states Child Welfare Information Gateway overview.

Briefings should avoid jargon, use plain language and note legal or statutory constraints. Documentation of what is shared and who attended is recommended.

When discussing risk, professionals should balance truthful clarity with empathy and describe available supports and services so families can weigh realistic options Family Rights Group guidance.

It is good practice to allow time for family members to ask clarifying questions and to record any information gaps that require follow-up.

Step 3 – Private family time and collaborative brainstorming

Private family time is an explicit, facilitator-managed phase where professionals leave the room so relatives can talk and generate options without professional direction, practice guides state MSD practice guidance.

Facilitators set clear boundaries for private time, offer prompts to support safety-focused brainstorming and make it clear how and when professionals will return to clarify facts or answer technical questions.

Useful prompts include asking family members to list strengths and supports, to describe immediate safety steps and to propose who can take on specific tasks and when.

Structured tools help families keep options realistic, including simple checklists, timelines and contingency prompts so plans are specific and assignable Family Rights Group guidance.

Step 4 – Choosing solutions and documenting the family plan

After private time, the family presents its choices and the facilitator helps check feasibility and safety. Professionals confirm factual constraints and note any statutory limits Child Welfare Information Gateway overview.

The family-authored plan should be written down with clear responsibilities, timelines and review dates. Recording who will do what and by when is central to later monitoring and to accountability MSD practice guidance.

Feasibility checks involve confirming that services or supports described are available and noting any actions that require follow-up by professionals. Where appropriate, written acknowledgement or signatures can be recorded to show agreement.

Step 5 – Implementation, monitoring and follow-up

Implementation establishes who monitors the plan, how progress will be recorded and the schedule for reviews, guidance and evaluations note Child Welfare Information Gateway overview.

Active follow-up can include regular contact, scheduled meetings and referral tracking. Evidence summaries highlight that good follow-up and fidelity of implementation are linked to stronger results in evaluations What Works evidence review.

Examples of review timelines vary by program. Common practice is an early review within weeks, a medium-term check at a few months and a longer-term review on an agreed schedule.

When problems arise, the plan can be re-opened or escalated to statutory pathways if agreed review checks show unresolved safety concerns.

When FGDM is appropriate: decision criteria and adaptations

FGDM may be appropriate where extended family supports exist, the family consents to participate and services can be arranged to support the plan. Choosing the approach requires professional judgement and discussion with the family.

Adaptations of the model exist for juvenile justice, education and health settings, but published evaluations show variable outcomes and call for context-specific monitoring Review of adaptations (see related impact study impact study).

Decision criteria often include assessing current safety concerns, mapping the network of supports and checking that the family has the capacity to take on agreed tasks or to accept offered services Child Welfare Information Gateway overview.

Common pitfalls, quality checks and practical tips for facilitators

Typical implementation errors include weak preparation, incomplete information-sharing, insufficient facilitation skills and poor follow-up. These faults reduce the chance that family plans will be durable, evidence reviews report What Works evidence summary (see review systematic review).

Quick fidelity checks include confirming that a preparatory meeting occurred, that briefings were documented, that private family time was observed and that a written plan with review dates exists.

Participant feedback is a practical quality marker. Short post-meeting surveys or structured debriefs help see whether families felt heard and whether professionals provided clear information Family Rights Group guidance.

Facilitator checklist, practical items to confirm: stakeholder mapping completed, venue and accessibility arranged, safety plan drafted, briefing materials plain-language reviewed, private family time scheduled, written plan template ready, follow-up dates set, and contact assigned for monitoring.

Conclusion and further reading

Key takeaways: the five-step family model is a practical, family-led approach that relies on careful preparation, clear information-sharing, protected private family time, documented plans and active follow-up to support safety and durable arrangements Child Welfare Information Gateway overview.

Practitioners should consult primary guidance and recent evidence summaries when designing local programs. The What Works evidence review and national practice guides offer details on fidelity, monitoring and common implementation challenges What Works evidence review.

Open questions remain about long-term child welfare outcomes, cost-effectiveness and standardized fidelity measures across systems. Ongoing evaluation and careful documentation are priorities for any scaled program.

Michael Carbonara’s campaign shares this explainer for voter education and practitioner reference; it is intended as neutral background material rather than policy prescription.