Signs of Safety (SOS) Approach to
Child Protection Conferences and Assessments
Presented by:
Joseph Davenport
Heather Brown
Child Protection Advisors and Chairs
Desired Outcome
•
Explore the evolution and experiences with traditional child
protection conferences
•
Explore the evolution and research behind the Signs of Safety (SOS)
model of child protection conferences
•
Explain how SOS assessment framework works and the development
of SMART plans for children
•
Discuss the benefits and challenges to SOS conferences
•
Show what other family members and professionals have said about
their experience with SOS conferences vs traditional format
•
Experience a mock SOS conference in action (Full day only)
Evolution of Child Protection Conferences
 Emerged from the 1974 inquiry into the death of Maria Colwell due
to lack of information and coordination amongst agencies involved
 Were professional’s only forums until the Cleveland Inquiry in 1988
where parents were invited to give proper consideration to the
child’s interests
 No significant changes since
Purpose:
 To be a multi-agency forum for sharing information amongst family
and involved professionals in order to assess risks to children and
decide if they require a Child Protection Plan (previously known as
CP Register) to address identified risks of significant harm
Frustration of Traditional Conferences
•
Parent’s feel “outnumbered” by professionals and very intimidated
•
Parent’s are more passive participants – their views do not matter
•
Parent’s feel being judged; a test of whether they will cooperate
•
Professionals want a more respectful, open, helpful, challenging,
but less judgmental form of Social Work
•
Too much time is spent on information sharing, and very little on
developing a plan to address concerns
•
Parents could not understand why they were being asked to do
certain actions in the plan
•
Too much focus on concerns and deficits leaving parents feeling
they are failures, rather than also recognizing any strengths
•
Often destroys working relationships with families and
professionals
Transition for Social Work Practice
• Moving from conveyor-belt practice characterised by
responsiveness to efficiency drivers, getting cases through the
system, meeting targets, speedy casework resolution and general
compliance with policy and practice guidelines.
• To reflective practice characterised by critical reflection on issues,
quality practice decision-making and interventions, depth of analysis,
engagement with families and responsiveness to their needs while
maintaining a child protection focus, mobilising supports and
resources and access to critical supervision.
Chapman and Field (2007)
Research Suggests Conferences Should
• Have a greater focus on planning for children
• Enable families to present their views
• Ensure all views are grounded in evidence
• Promote discussion and explore dissent
• Place a strong emphasis on working relationships
• Reduce power inequalities
• Build on existing strengths
• Bring about change and improve outcomes for children
Key Influences to SOS Approach
• Solution Focused Therapy approaches pioneered by Steve de Shazer
and Insoo Kim Berg
• Andrew Turnell & Steve Edwards book “Signs of Safety”
• Strengthening Families approach to conferences (West Berkshire) by
Damian Griffiths
• Family Group Conference model based on Maori values and practice
in New Zealand and further developed by Olmsted County Child and
Family Services in Minnesota
• Messages from research: Farmer (1999), Millar and Young (1996),
Campbell (1997), Bell (1996)
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
Safety
• Strengths demonstrated as
protection over time
ℴ Pattern/history of exceptions
Risk Statements
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
1.
2.
3.
4.
Next Steps
What needs to change
Who will do it
When will they do it
Etc.
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.
Difference To Traditional Conferences
• More focus on managing risk and working around issues of denial in
order to create safety for children and minimise the impact of harm
• Transparent and clearer analysis of risks to children and of the
information shared in the meeting
• Greater recognition of existing strengths and safety factors to build
upon
• Acknowledging grey areas that need further clarity, rather than
making assumptions not based in evidence
• Engages professionals and parents as part of the solution
• Seeks cooperation thus highlights lack of cooperation
Difference To Traditional Conferences
• More bespoke (SMART) plans for children that are owned by the
conference and is not just the work of the Chair
• Clearer understanding of what is expected of parents and what needs
to change to reduce the risk of harm to children (desired outcome)
• A more clear and comfortable forum for children and young people to
attend and participate
• Requires the Chair to be confident in facilitating discussions rather
than being directive and prescriptive
Munroe’s Review
Relatively few children are removed permanently from their birth
families and the main part of child protection work is helping parents
provide better care. The work is informed by professional ethics, which
include respect for culture, and a difficult combination of skills: being
able to be authoritative and ask challenging questions about family life
as well as engaging with parents in order to work with them to resolve
their problems and improve their parenting capacity. Professionals can
struggle with this. Some are so focused on supporting parents that
they are insufficiently challenging of problematic parenting; others are
so focused on checking that the child is safe that they enter an
adversarial relationship with the parents. Sometimes the latter is
unavoidable, however skilled the professional, but overall, successful
engagement with the parents is a key contributor to effective helping.
(Section 2.24)
Munroe’s Review
Children and young people are a key source of information about their
lives and the impact any problems are having on them in the specific
culture and values of their family. It is therefore puzzling that the
evidence shows that children are not being adequately included in
child protection work. (sec 2.5)
The main reason why statutory guidance has grown is because advice
on good practice has been added… those working in the field feel
increasingly obliged to do things ‘by the book’ rather than use their
professional judgment about children’s needs. (sec 3.14)
Harm can never be totally prevented. Risk decisions should, therefore,
be judged by the quality of the decision making, not by the outcome.
(Principle 4)
Helping children and families involves working with them and therefore
the quality of the relationship between the child and family and
professionals directly impacts on the effectiveness of help given.
(Principles of an effective child protection system)
The Signs of Safety Style of
Child Protection Conferences
Key Elements of SOS Conferences
•
Chair meets family first to explain process
•
Where space permits, opening the space in a horse shoe or semi
circle format around the Chair and white board
•
Style of chairing is more facilitative versus directive
•
Succinct and transparent assessment and categorization of the
information shared in the meeting that can be more clearly
understood by professionals and family alike
•
Family have greater opportunities to respond and participate
throughout
•
Use of scaling questions can be helpful in assessing and qualifying
the risk of harm to children and likelihood of future harm
Key Elements of SOS Conferences
•
Ensures the conference captures the history of risks and concerns
while keeping the focus on creating safety and improved future
outcomes for children
•
Ensures that decisions made, including the type of plan, is based
in evidence and most effectively manages risks to children
•
Greater recognition that the expertise in supporting the children
and their parents rests with the professionals working in
partnership with the family and not solely with the Chair
•
Focus on creating a plan of action that involves the family in its
creation rather than the designation of whether it needs to be a
Child in Need or Child Protection Plan
Room Layout
Chair
stands
Chair
sits
White Board
is natural
focal point
Traditional
White Board
Signs of Safety
SOS Assessment Framework - Brent
Unclear
Concerns
Current Risks/
Concerns
Historic/
Complicating
Ben injured
during DV
incident when
he intervened
and dad hit him
Mum retracts DV
statements to
police
Mum went to
hospital after
last DV incident,
dad arrested.
Ben says it is
difficult to focus
on school work
due to conflicts
at home.
8 reports of DV
to police from
2002 to 2011
Mum and Ben
want dad home,
but bail prevents
this and professionals worry
about future DV
Grey Areas
When will it be
safe for dad to
return to the
family home?
What needs to
change to
sufficiently
reduced risk of
harm to Ben
from DV?
How can Ben
have safe
contact with his
dad?
Positives
Safety/Protective
Factors
Mum calls the
police when DV
occurs
Police bail
prevents dad
from returning
home
Ben trusts and
confides in his
teacher Mr Rodes
about DV at home
Strengths/
Positives
Ben is always
well presented
Home clean and
tidy.
Lots of toys and
books observed
in Ben’s room
Dad goes to all of
Ben’s football
practices &
games
SOS Assessment Framework - Hackney
 Safety related to Risks 
Historic
Factors
Current Risks
or Dangers
Safety Factors
Grey Areas
Complicating
Factors
Strengths
Social Care
involved
since 2008
due to DV
concerns
Ben injured
during DV
incident when
he intervened
& dad hit him
Mum calls the
police when
DV occurs
When will it be
safe for dad to
return to the
family home?
Mum retracts
DV statements
to police
Ben is always
clean and well
dressed
8 reports of
DV with
police from
2002 to 2011
Mum
hospitalized
with injuries
for last DV
incident
Ben can’t
focus on
school work
due to the
arguments.
Police bail
prevents dad
from returning
home
Ben trusts and
confides in his
teacher Mr
Rhodes about
the situation at
home
What needs to
change to
assure professionals that
risk of harm to
Ben from DV
sufficiently
reduced?
How can dad
and Ben have
safe contact?
Mum and Ben
want dad
home, but bail
prevents this
and Social
Care have
concerns
about future
DV incidents
Dad goes to
all of Ben’s
football
practices
Ben has good
school
attendance
Both parents
affectionate
with Ben
Wokingham Signs of Safety
Assessment Framework
History
Risks
Grey Area
Strengths/Safety
What were we
concerned about?
What are we
concerned about?
What do we need to
know more about?
What is going well
or reduces our
concerns?
Dad was living in the
home and physically
abusing mum in
front of the children
The children remain
fearful of their
father
Would mum call the
police if dad came to
the home?
Mum does not want
to testify against
dad in his criminal
trial
Can dad still have
safe contact with his
children? If so,
how?
Dad denies he
assaulted mum and
refuses to engage
with professionals
If mum cannot keep
the children safe
from DV, who else in
the family or friends
network can?
The children were
upset having
witnessed DV
between their
parents
The children had
trouble sleeping and
often wet the bed
No concerns with
basic parenting of
the children (ie:
food, hygiene, etc.)
The children attend
and do well in school
No health concerns
for the children
Mum called police
during last DV
incident. Dad was
arrested
Making of the Child’s Plan
Desired Outcome
Actions
By Whom
By When
Sally will live in a home
that is kept clean,
without rodents, no
clutter, and that any
hazards that may pose a
risk of physical injury
are eliminated.
The parents agree to clean
and wash the home, clothing,
and linens each week on
Saturday. Sally will also help
by cleaning her own room.
Any clutter will be removed
each day.
Mum, Dad,
Sally
Every
Saturday
The Social Worker will visit
Sally every two weeks and
observe if the home is kept
clean and hazard free. Some
visits will be unannounced.
Social Worker
Every two
weeks
If the Social Worker observes
that the home returns to an
unkempt or unsafe state, they
will seek legal advice on
whether to begin care
proceedings for Sally.
Social Worker
If needed
If the parents cannot
keep their home clean
and free of hazards,
then Sally will live
somewhere else that is.
Decision on the Plan
The Chair will ask whether the plan the conference has made
needs to be a Child Protection or Child in Need Plan.

Everyone provides their views to help inform the Chair’s decision

Asking this question at the end increases the family’s participation in
formulating the plan without the stigma of knowing it will be child
protection before hand

Formulating the plan first takes away the assumption the plan must
always be a child protection plan in order to sufficiently reduce the risk of
harm and provide adequate support to the children

Helps to ensure decisions of whether to have a child protection plan are
based on the likelihood of future significant harm to children
Benefits of SOS Conferences
•
Shifts balance of power without losing the focus on identified risks
to children.
•
A less adversarial forum which is more appropriate in court
•
Highlights the importance of multi-agency ownership and
engagement
•
Requires professionals to synthesise and analyse information
•
More interactive and transparent process with professionals and
family members. Helps young people to understand and
participate in the process
•
Helps foster working relationships between professionals and
family members
Benefits of SOS Conference
• Develops more bespoke plans with more emphasis on intervention
rather than monitoring – requires different skill set
• More focus on identifying and managing risk rather than being risk
adverse
• Greater clarity on what needs to change and how we will know
Challenges of SOS Conferences
•
Initial conferences can take longer (avg. 2 hours), but reviews are
usually shorter
•
•
Chairs can feel uneasy about the shift of role and balance of power
•
Professionals feel uncomfortable at first on having to critically
assess the information shared and give their views on what they
feel needs to change or improve for the benefit of the children
Worry that the process feels too simple to adequately assess and
address risks to children
What do you believe yours might be?
The big problem for society (and consequently for
professionals) is establishing a realistic expectation of
professionals’ ability to predict the future and manage risk
of harm to children and young people….. It may be judged
highly unlikely that the child will be re-abused but low
probability events happen. This does not in itself indicate
flaws in the professional reasoning. The ideal would be if
risk management could eradicate risk but this is not
possible; it can only try to reduce the probability of harm.
Munroe Review, May 2011
The Brent Experience

Feedback in December 2010 from 100 professionals and family
members are that 71% were in favour of SOS conference format

Feedback from survey of 70 professionals in May 2011 shows 80%
rated good to excellent the parents understanding of what is
expected of them, and 90% rated good to excellent the
assessment of risk to children

Less conflict with families, less adversarial process, and more
engagement with plan to create better outcomes for children

Greater understanding by family and professionals as to what the
concerns are, what is working well, and what is expected to
change

More discussion and debate amongst participants on the
information shared, formulating the plan and decision making
The West Berkshire Experience

In 2005 West Berks conducted detailed interviews with 8 families
and shorter interviews with 15 professionals from Social Care,
police, health, education, and probation

Of the 11 professionals that had experienced a traditional
conference before, 82% felt the strengthening families approach
was an improvement

Most families felt they were given opportunities to express their
opinions, even when they were perceives as unwelcomed

Most families felt strengths and progress were recognised even
when they disagreed with comments that were made

Most families could identify and understand the goals and what
needed to happen or change from the conference
What Did People Say?



“We should have always done them (conferences) this way. I don’t
know why we didn’t”
(Brent Health Visitor)
“It gave some of the responsibility back to the family. It might
make them feel like they do have some control which probably
wasn’t the case before.” (West Berks professional)
“The issues on paper and reports are made more practical and
parents are able to contribute more positively to the discussion.”
(Brent Social Worker)


“With a less formal style, the need for the Chair to be professional
is paramount.” (West Berks professional)
“I know exactly what they want me to do. Some bits are
reasonable, others aren’t.” (West Berks Parent)
What Did People Say?

“Plans seem to evolve out of conservations as you go along rather
than being an additional process added on at the end.” (West Berks
Professional)


I was very impressed with the new format and general
effectiveness, supported by very skillful chairing of the meeting
having attended many meetings. (Brent Education Professional)
“Overall as a process it has helped us. We might not have got to
where we are now. It has sort of done something for us in a way.
I don’t think there is much they could change to make it
(conference) better except having less people there.” (West Berks
Parent)

“The new format is interactive and allows all professionals to
understand the case fully.” (Brent Social Worker)
For More Information
West Berkshire – Sample Conference
www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=12092
Brent LSCB – Further Info & Multi-Agency Report
www.brentlscb.org.uk
Signs of Safety Website
www.signsofsafety.net
Any comments or questions?
Mock SOS Conference
Mock Conference
Family Details
Mother
Father
Son
Daughter
Priya Mahad
Said Ahmed
Hassan Ahmed
Iqra Ahmed
03/08/86
14/10/85
14/03/10
04/10/05
South Asian
South Asian
South Asian
South Asian
Background
The family have resided in Wokingham since 2009 when they relocated from
the Netherlands. The parents are both originally from India, but the father is a
naturalised UK citizen and the mother is here on a spousal visa. Iqra was
born in the Netherlands and Hassan in the UK. The conference is called due
a recent report of domestic violence where dad physically assaulted mum in
front of the children. There is a known DV history with the parents dating back
to 2009.