Strengthening families: a new
approach to child protection
Presentation to London Safeguarding
Children Board Conference
December 2010
Joseph Davenport, Barry Luxton, Sarah Peel
Context
Recommendation of the SCR into the death of
Peter Connelly tasked the LSCB with assuring;
“that child protection conferences are
administered efficiently, attended assiduously,
managed authoritatively and produce decisions
which are child-focussed, with child protection
plans that are purposeful and authoritative”.
Families’ experiences
Recent research undertaken by Family Commission in Haringey;





Only one of the four mothers felt the case conference was a positive
experience.
Professionals need to understand how intimidating it is to be so
‘outnumbered’ in a formal meeting;
Parents felt they lacked the necessary information about what would
happen;
Parents feel unprepared and one explicitly complained about not
having the paperwork on their case in advance;
Families want a more respectful, open, helpful, challenging, but less
judgmental form of social work.
If families do not trust their social worker, they will play the game
of doing what they believe is expected of them but will not
really positively embrace change. They will operate in a climate
of being ‘observed’ and ‘judged’ - giving little away.
Research suggests conferences should







Have a greater focus on planning
Enable families to present their views
Ensure all views are grounded in evidence
Promote discussion and explore dissent
Place a strong emphasis on relationships
Reduce power inequalities
Build on strengths
Strengthening Families Framework



From Minnesota to Gateshead and Brent!
Two mentions in the Munro first report (Dr Munro is also due to
speak at an international conference in the Netherlands on
Signs of Safety approach in Sept 2011)
More similarities with than differences from the traditional
business meeting format of Child Protection Conferences…
–
–
–
–
–
Reports
Pre-meetings with families
Multi-agency meeting with parents attending
Decision about harm
Protection plan
…but designed to help families participate more easily, to help all
participants assess risk better and for all to be more engaged in
the development of a CP plan.
Underpinning influences of SFF








Andrew Turnell & Steve Edwards book “Signs of
Safety”
Focus on risk and safety
Key learning from Family Group Conferences (FGC)
FGC & Restorative Practice
UK CP Conferences
Messages from Research
Signs of Safety and Solution Focused practice
Case Mapping
Comprehensive Risk Assessment
Family Knowledge
Network and Culture
Danger
Balanced
Assessment
of Risk
Safety
Professional Knowledge
Network and Authority
©2000Andrew Turnell PO Box 56 Burswood WA 6100 Australia,
aturnell@iinet.com.au
Key differences







Building safety for children at risk of harm
Visible and transparent analysis of the information
presented to the meeting
Analysis of risks as well as safety/protective factors
Engages professionals and parents as part of the
solution
Seeks cooperation thus highlights lack of cooperation
The plan is owned by the conference and is not the work
of the chair – improved working together in core group
Clearer about outcomes which indicate effective
safeguarding – better chance of change or timely
decision making.
Strengthening Families Framework
Danger/Harm
GENOGRAM/ECOMAP
ℴ Detail re: incident(s)
Bringing the family to
the attention of the
agency.
ℴ Pattern/family history
Risk Statements
Safety
• Strengths demonstrated as
protection over time
ℴ Pattern/history of exceptions
(Grey Area)
ℴ Risk to child(ren)
ℴ Context of risk
Safety Statement/
Outcomes
•Description of the child’s care
experience in positive terms
Complicating Factors
ℴ Condition/behaviours
that contribute to
greater difficulty for
the family
ℴ Presence of research
based risk factors
Outline Plan
1. Keyworker
2. Visiting frequency
3. Outcomes
4. Core Group – who?
5. Core Group dates
6. Safety bottom lines
7. Review CPC date
Strengths/Protective
Factors
ℴ Assets, resources,
capacities within
family,
individual/community
ℴ Presence of
research based
protective factors
Lohrbach, S. & Sawyer, R (2004) Creating a constructive practice: family and professional partnership in high-risk child protection case
conferences. Protecting Children, 19(2): 26-35.
Roles
The role of Conference Chairs;





Active
Facilitative
Directive
Challenging
Enabling
Expectations of professionals;


Clearer focus on analysis of risks
Engagement in the protection plan
Key elements











Chair meets family first
Layout of room
Refreshments
Style of chairing (facilitative)
Family can be helped to complete genogram
Succinct presentation of information
Family gets opportunity to respond
Clear and transparent focus on risk, danger,
harm, complicating factors and safety
Risk statement
Plan – focus on bringing about change
Decision
The conference set up
White Board
Potential benefits/challenges







Shifts the balance of power
Significant change in the approach of chairs
Importance of multi-agency ownership and
engagement
Should have a system wide impact
The focus must be on risks
Requires professionals to synthesise and analyse
information
Develops intervention plans rather than monitoring
plans – requires different skill set
Implementation - Haringey






Presentation and discussion at LSCB
Role of CPAs in early planning for the ICPC
Development work with CPAs
Multi-agency briefings for social workers, TMs and
partner agencies
Report and minutes formats
Practicalities – room, whiteboard and refreshments
The Brent Experience
Initial Stages;
 Began by observing a conference in West Berkshire
 Discussion with the Chair’s on implementing the
approach in Brent.
 Challenges were the different approach for Chairs to
conferences, lack of money to implement significant
changes, and limits on room size and locations
 Would other agencies embrace new approach?
 How would we evaluate its effectiveness?
The Brent Experience
Implementation;
 Chairs agreed to share experiences and give it a go
(one opted to retire)
 Two multi-agency outreach sessions arranged to
demonstrate and explain the new model
 Initial feedback was that new approach is embraced
 Agreed a timescale for beginning the new format and
evaluation period by conference attendees
 Kept the conference room arranged the same, but added
white board as focal point. Chair mainly stands to write
 All done for a cost of approx. £500 (two white boards,
some supplies, training room rentals, and biscuits!)
Conference Room Layout
White
Board is
natural
focal point
White Board
On The White Board
Current Risks/
Concerns
Historic/
Complicating Factors
Grey Areas
Safety/Protective
Factors
Strengths/
Positives
How significant is the harm or risk of harm to the child(ren)?
Low 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 High
How likely are the children to suffer harm without Social
Care’s involvement?
Low 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Different
Colours used
for
professionals
family, and
Social Care.
10 High
Desired Outcome
Actions
By Who
By When
Sally no longer
experiences the
emotional harm from
domestic violence in
the home.
Social worker to refer
mother to a domestic
violence agency to
explore safety planning
and cycles of abuse.
Social Worker
Within 2 weeks
Mother
ASAP
The Brent Experience
Results;
 Feedback from professionals and family members are
that 68% in favour of new format
 Anecdotal evidence shows less conflict with families,
less adversarial format, more engagement with plan
 Greater understanding by family and professionals as to
what the concerns are, acknowledgement of strengths,
and grey areas that need to be done or assessed further
 More discussion and debate amongst participants on the
plan and decision making
 CP Plans much SMARTer and built for purpose
around the children and family’s needs.
The Brent Experience
Unexpected Results;
 Professionals and Social Workers are increasingly
incorporating the 5 categories into their assessments and
reports to conference
 Social Work managers using categories in supervision to
help gain better understanding and insight into cases
Key Complaints;
 Takes too long!
“We should have always done them (conferences) this way,
I don’t know why we didn’t” - Health Visitor, 20+ years experience
Hackney Experience
Context of Reclaiming Social Work
Influences are:
 Strengthening Families
 Family Network Meetings
 Behavioural and Systemic Approach
Hackney’s introduction of New Conferencing





Broad consultation
Number of workshops for agencies
Internal workshops for Hackney CYPS
Training for Chairs – Solution
Focussed/Signs of Safety/ Systemic work
Work with case holding Units to promote
Signs of Safety assessment tools for
children.
For further details…
West Berkshire
www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=12092
Signs of Safety Website
www.signsofsafety.net/
Presenter Contact Details
Joseph.davenport@brent.gov.uk
Barry.luxton@hackney.gov.uk
Sarah.peel@haringey.gov.uk