47
APRIL 2011
Te Hautaka ako te Tari Äwhina i te Tamaiti, te Rangatahi, tae atu ki te Whänau

1
3
10
18
27
35
44
48
47
APRIL 2011
The stone that features on the cover was created by a young person at one of our care and protection residences.
Social Work Now is published three times a year by Child, Youth and Family.
Views expressed in the journal are not necessarily those of Child, Youth and Family.
Material may be reprinted in other publications only with prior written permission and provided the material is used in context and credited to Social Work Now .

Welcome to this latest edition of Social Work
Now , which has a strong focus on improving practice. I am delighted to have the opportunity to provide this introduction and to be working in a country that has always impressed me with its willingness to concentrate on the importance of practice and to innovate in social work to improve the lives of vulnerable children.
I want to thank our previous Chief Social Worker,
Marie Connolly (who has now taken up a position at the University of Melbourne) for her careful stewardship of the journal for five years and in particular her passion for keeping evidence-based practice in the forefront of everyday social work.
I trust and hope we can keep the journal to the same high standard and that we continue to develop the publication to best meet the needs of its readership. It is fundamentally about social work and good quality practice. To that end we will soon be consulting widely about any changes or improvements you would like to see in this journal. We are also keen to be able to present more articles from frontline practitioners and managers, alongside perspectives from other agencies we work with and, in particular, contributions from children, young people and families who use our services. As part of our consultation we want to hear from you about how you would like to see this publication in the future. We encourage you to fill in a brief survey which can be found on the Practice Centre website, www.practicecentre.cyf.govt.nz , under
‘what’s new’
Before we turn our attention to this journal, I want to acknowledge the people of Christchurch and especially our staff there, who have shown huge courage, resilience and professionalism in the face of such adversity. It was during the production of this edition that the devastating earthquake hit Christchurch on 22 February 2011.
Everyone in New Zealand has been affected to some degree by the catastrophic earthquake, but despite this social workers and others working with vulnerable children have kept services going. I met up with social workers soon after the quake and there was a real determination to keep up the quality of practice, which was really inspiring.
In any context it is important to keep learning and moving forward. As social workers we should commit ourselves to being life-long learners – ready to understand new ways of working with children and families, the latest lessons from research, and emerging models of best practice. Each of the articles here provides ideas and insights into practice and what might help improve outcomes for children and young people.
This edition is particularly timely as it introduces some of the current thinking that is shaping practice in Child, Youth and Family, and it is also unique as it has been entirely written by the staff within the Office of the Chief Social Worker. They offer a unique perspective on the direction of practice within, Child Youth and Family.
Our first three articles converge on assessment.
Nova Salomen and Debbie Sturmfels articulate the importance of undertaking and utilising holistic assessments to better understand a child or young person’s needs, enabling us to more effectively act on them. In a similar vein, Megan
Dickie outlines the work that has underpinned the development of the TRAX Adolescent
Assessment currently in use in New Zealand.
Exploring another area of assessment, Jonelle
Crawford provides us with a tangible overview of conducting assessments on parenting capacity.
Moving away from assessment Have requested updated figures and will send them to you asap, Emma Craigie examines the complexity underlying family violence dynamics within the child protection arena and offers some insight into how to keep the focus on the child.
Irene de Haan and Kathleen Manion discuss the importance of building sustainable solutions to keep children and young people safe using safety plans. Nova Salomen concludes the articles in this edition by highlighting the importance of
1
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011

strengthening our practice in monitoring and intervening with a family. To close this issue,
Marti Hartley provides us with a refreshing review of three children’s books that social workers can use to engage with children.
I hope you enjoy this edition and that it provides you with inspiration and food for thought in your important work in trying to improve the lives of vulnerable children and families.
2
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011

“How we think about issues of child maltreatment will, not surprisingly, determine how we respond” (Turnell & Edwards, 1999, p.
29). While this quote is over 10 years old, it still rings true today. Social work is a value-laden profession and practitioners bring their own beliefs and principles to their practice. Phillips and Dutt (1990) described this appropriately when they suggested that all those involved in making, and responding to, allegations of chid abuse were not neutral and brought their own perspectives to their responses. Similarly, they suggested that any legislative framework governing child protection also represents a particular standpoint.
Policies and legislation are in place to temper individual judgements based on ‘gut instinct’.
However, it is difficult to maintain an objective view when faced with harm to children. Our personal values influence how we respond and this may lead us down a one-way street from which we do not attempt to turn.
This article provides an overview of assessment practice, within the context of Child, Youth and Family, the child protection agency in
New Zealand. It discusses the importance of building relationships with our clients, taking our
‘blinkers’ off, and ensuring we are working with children and families.
What is assessment?
Assessment is about understanding the needs of children and young people and their families
(Connolly, 2008).
When social workers begin their enquiries into concerns relating to the safety and wellbeing of children, they need to balance keeping a global perspective with trying to ascertain specific details and facts. This is generally performed within a context of wariness and uncertainty, by both the practitioner and the people they are interviewing.
The Oxford Dictionary (2010) definition for
‘assess’ is “to evaluate or estimate the nature, ability, or quality of…”. Thus an assessment in this context is ‘the action’ of evaluating the nature, ability and quality of the safety of a child. In essence we are attempting to understand the circumstances for the child, the presence of any safety concerns and the nature of those concerns, as well as the general wellbeing of the child.
While a child protection practitioner’s primary focus is initially on safety, an assessment needs to be broader than this, whether it be the safety assessment or holistic wellbeing assessment.
Full assessments cover the same areas of safety, security, health and happiness, that is, the needs of the child.
Remaining child-centred
Child, Youth and Family has strengthened its response to children and young people by introducing differential response (in June
2008) and by updating the Child Protection
Protocol (in April 2010) with the police. Reviews of these initiatives have illustrated that most of the children we come in contact with are safe. However, our interactions with families often uncover concerns centring on the child’s environment and their wellbeing. The course of our work often illuminates unmet needs, which we know can lead to adverse life outcomes, such as unemployment, offending and low educational
3

4 achievement. Traditionally, child protection agencies have not been good at responding to ‘unmet needs’, as they tend to sit lower on the list of priorities on the child protection continuum.
Holland (2001) completed a qualitative analysis of the conduct of indepth assessments by social workers in Britain, concentrating on the portrayal of children in the assessments and reporting children’s developmental progress. She found that adults were ‘vividly portrayed’ with colourful pictures, while children were described
‘two dimensionally’. Holland also found that children were commonly discussed in relation to their parents. For instance, Holland readily found detailed descriptions of the child’s response to their parents, but not descriptions of the child in other environments, such as at school or other people’s homes. Assessments tend to focus on explaining parental behaviour and limiting their description of the child to their physical presentation. Holland (2001) provided one example of a 25-page assessment that included only four pages discussing the five children and only four lines covering the two-year-old. This is consistent with findings from informal reviews of full assessments conducted by regional practice advisors and the Office of the Chief Social
Worker in New Zealand.
Pithouse and Atkinson (1988) state that social workers can be seen as always engaging in the task of building narratives to report and justify their actions. This involves a process, termed
“bricolage” (1988, p. 194). This is where the social worker selects aspects of family life and reassembles them in narrative form.
What emerges from the process of bricolage in our assessments is a fairly flat and narrow perspective of the child. Most of our descriptions come from our knowledge of child development, attachment and how the child has been described by other adults, peppered with brief sightings of the child and third-person descriptions of their behaviour and development. This is particularly true for children who are non-verbal or who have a disability. Our ability to provide the best intervention relies on us having better knowledge of the children we work with, and this means widening our assessments to include observation and interaction with the child in different settings.
Where does assessment begin?
Assessment begins from the moment we first start to think about how to engage with a family.
Planning is essential to a thorough assessment.
Child, Youth and Family introduced the use of the group consult, an assessment tool adapted from the work of Turnell and Edwards (1999), as part of differential response (see Field, 2008). The group consult helps in understanding the danger–safety continuum and providing clarity about what we are actually concerned about within a family.
The group consult has been used in a variety of ways, including as a way to understand a new case and the directions it needs to take, or as a way to plan a more extensive assessment. The initial information we collect often provides us with the dangers that exist for a child, however we also need to articulate what it is about those dangers that we are really worried about for the child. It is useful to think about the information needed and about where that information can be obtained from.
The assessment framework described in Jonelle
Crawford’s article in this edition of Social Work
Now can be used to guide assessment planning.
By using all three sides of the triangle it is easy to identify what areas need to be covered. The framework is not a checklist, rather it clarifies what information will help us assist the whänau.
Information gathering will then vary according to the needs of the family we are working with.
Collecting the right information will satisfy the three core areas of the assessment framework: safety, permanency and wellbeing. It helps us understand what is working well for the family and where there may be unmet needs.
Families are experts in their own experience
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011

and know more about their own strengths and vulnerabilities. Our job is to engage with them in ways that encourage collaboration and build solid foundations from which to develop a positive intervention plan.
How do I assess?
Building Relationships
Human relationships are complex and often value-laden. The values and preconceived notions a social worker brings to relationships with their clients can impact on the outcomes. If a person’s values allow them to make judgements that people are ‘bad for what they have done’ and incapable of change, this obstructs a respectful helping relationship before it has begun. There is a raft of literature supporting the fact that “the most potent and dynamic power for influence lies in the relationship” (Perlman, 1972, p. 150).
Over a thousand studies have found that the quality of the worker–client relationship is the most potent predictor of the outcome, regardless of experience or professional discipline. Sparks and Duncan (2009) found that the child–therapist and parent–therapist alliances (i.e., relationships between the child and their worker and the parent and their worker) were the most salient components of the therapy that related to changes in the child and improvement in the parenting skills and interactions at home.
Qualitative research completed by Holland
(2000) of British social workers conducting comprehensive assessments found that typically most assessment decisions are based on verbal interactions with the parents. The verbal interactions are viewed as inextricably linked with the social worker client relationship. Within this relationship the ability to agree on how the abuse occurred was critical in determining the outcome of the assessment. The implication is that the assessments centred on how social workers perceived the personalities of the parents and their attitudes. Parents who could work well within a relationship were seen as articulate, plausible and cooperative. Conversely, parents who were negative were viewed as inarticulate and passive (Holland, 2000, p. 152).
The same study found that parents who accepted responsibility were seen as having ‘insight’, while those who deflected responsibility were described as lacking ‘insight’. If the parent was unable to provide an acceptable explanation and show contrition they were not seen as cooperating
(p. 154). Ultimately this paper suggests that parental articulacy, a positive worker–client relationship, and an agreed plausible explanation for the family situation determine whether a recommendation for family reunification is made.
This raises an important cautionary note. If most assessments are based on verbal interactions and if parents are assessed as ‘passive’ or
‘inarticulate’, then they are less likely to have a favourable assessment which then influences the decisions made, including whether to return a child home.
According to Turnell and Edwards (1999, p. 112), the initial assessment visit tends to have three purposes:
• assess the truth of the allegations
• assess the likelihood of future harm
• build as much cooperation as possible so that the best information is gathered and a partnership between the family and agency is achievable should ongoing casework be required.
There is a tendency to focus our visit on assessing the truth of the allegation and the likelihood of future harm, without prioritising building a relationship. While this may be understandable when under pressure to meet timeframes, it can become counterproductive. Without building a relationship, we increase the likelihood of hostility growing, which in turn increases the likelihood of greater statutory intervention.
“Partnership-aspiring child protection work requires skilful practice that is simultaneously
5

6 authoritative and open-minded” (Turnell &
Edwards, 1999, p.112).
In line with Turnell and Edwards’ approach,
Duncan (2010) advises practitioners about “being friendly, responsive and flexible (like on a first date): stay close to the client’s experience. Listen, listen, listen”. A more hospitable relationship allows a practitioner greater chance to work together to achieve safety and wellbeing for the child. One of the biggest challenges for social workers is to remain open-minded and keep the ‘blinkers off’. Similarly, an awareness of your beliefs and opinions and an openness to the client’s perspective helps facilitate a more meaningful and productive relationship.
A useful maxim is “cooperate with the person, not the abuse” (Turnell & Edwards, 1999, p. 33).
This does not mean we avoid or ignore the danger and our worries or condone harmful behaviour; it means we are open about our worries and seek to explore them with the family.
What does assessment look like?
Achieving a positive outcome for children requires us to work intensively at the beginning of our engagement with a family. If we do not completely understand what is happening within a family, and for a child, we cannot appropriately respond. Having a strong and positive relationship with the child and their family allows us to better develop the partnership needed to support change. Not investing in this can and does result in repeat reports of concern and children having ongoing unmet needs.
Assessment requires talking with those key people involved and truly understanding what they are saying. Listening and observing are two key skills needed for producing good assessments.
Our observation is critical, as too often we rely on verbal reports alone.
Talking to other professionals is useful to gain their views and understand how their information fits with the family’s views as a form of triangulation. Again this requires us to ensure our judgements about the information are not confused with case details.
Often what we see and judge to be significant is quite different from the perspective and priorities of families. For example, a mother whose children have been removed may storm out of an interview, and we interpret this as her being resistant and angry. Her perspective may be that she is frustrated with telling the same story three times and not seeing any action in her children returning home. As our judgements affect how we interact with people, we need to constantly remind ourselves that our decisions are based on factual details, and not our assumptions.
A study by Thoburn, Lewis and Shemmings
(1995) regarding well-handled investigations still resonates today. Their analysis of 220 child protection cases compared the differences between situations that were conflictual and those that were cooperative. They found the key element that differed between these cases was how relationships were formed at the crisis stage of contact. Even in the most difficult of cases the key factors in fostering this sort of partnership were “the attitudes, skills and efforts of the social workers backed by agency policy and procedures” (p. 229).
According to Turnell and Edwards (1999) a wellhandled investigation involves:
• an exploration of the allegation based on agency procedure for assessing danger and harm, incorporating the family’s view of the allegations
• integrating an exploration of safety, including past and present protectiveness, family strengths and resource and their own ideas for increasing safety
• listening to the family, hearing their view
• empathy for the anxiety the assessment may invoke
• a clear and open stance about our role and
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011

authority – an up front and honest attitude about the allegations
• conducting interviews slowly and with flexibility
• recognising not everything can be addressed in one meeting
• focusing on small steps, making sure each step is understood and recognising that not everything can happen at once
• providing choice and an opportunity for family input
• interviewing for information not solutions
– take pressure off yourselves by working to gather the best possible information rather than trying too quickly to arrive at decisions and plans.
Setting goals about what needs to be achieved with each contact can also help save time, but it is also important to allow time to reflect on the information and review our position in relation to that information. Colleagues and your supervisor are often useful in seeking solutions.
This time for reflection is an important part of the process, and it is important to keep it separate from information gathering. There are many cases where decisions are made during the first visit, rather than after a period of digestion and further investigation. Too often we do not have enough information to make an informed response after one visit.
In 2005 Dr Marie Connolly, then Chief Social
Worker for Child, Youth and Family, introduced the practice frameworks to the organisation.
The frameworks are a series of triggers or practice prompts that guide social workers at key decision points within the social work process, for example, when first engaging with a family or making decisions about permanent care(Connolly, 2007). The frameworks include two interwoven phases on engagement and assessment and seeking solutions. Connolly (2007) says the triggers in the phases provide a ‘best practice’ reminder for social workers within the early phase of our work. The questions allow social workers to dig deeper into practice and provide opportunities to explore the ways in which the perspectives come together to shape and influence their work. The ‘seeking solutions’ phase begins once the social worker forms a belief that the child is in need of care and/or protection, and work needs to be done toward developing solutions.
Chapman and Field (2007), drawing upon
Ferguson’s work (2004), explore the levels of practice depth from conveyor-belt practice to reflective practice. Conveyor-belt practice looks at assessing safety as a way to respond to efficiency drivers and speedy casework resolution, whereas reflective practice encourages critical reflection, engagement with families and responsiveness to their needs.
There are occasions when conveyor-belt practice is appropriate. However, the practitioner needs to be mindful of pausing and taking a deeper look at a case when needed. Prior to determining a solution, a skilful practitioner will step back and consider the information and balance it with professional judgement. Professional judgement is required to determine what level of practice depth is required at different times during the life of a case. For example, a family may have been notified to child protection services two or three times concerning the care of the children and the state of the home. Although the concerns may have been dealt with efficiently and appropriately at the time, a new notification may require a different approach.
It is frequently cited that child protection practitioners work in an uncertain environment, with competing versions and differing interpretations of events and information (Turnell
& Edwards, 1999; Parton & O’Byrne, 2000; Munro,
2002). Sometimes the right direction for a case is clear, while other times it remains grey. It is often only with the benefit of hindsight that we can
7

8 be seen as ‘right’. Brechin, Brown and Eby (2000) describe a model of critical practice founded on a clear reflective value base, which recognises the need for professionals to be able to handle change and uncertainty (cited in Barnes & Chand, 2000).
Some may argue that there is little time for practice reflection. However when undertaking an assessment regularly, questioning the assessment information and direction and accepting the context of uncertainty can ultimately save time. Operating in this way builds confidence and makes decision-making more transparent (Barnes & Chand 2000). Rushing to a decision and adhering to one direction regardless of contra-indictors can be counter productive (Taylor & White 2006). Confirmation bias (i.e. seeking only information to confirm a singular hypothesis) is often at play, which is why it is important to continually question the case direction, ensure we are using all of the information we have to provide an informed view and remain open to an alternative hypothesis.
It is important to use our evidence base, including theoretical knowledge to interrogate a preconceived hypothesis.
Once an assessment is completed, a good assessment summary should outline the pertinent factual information from the child and family members about safety and needs and clearly evidence their perspective of the concerns and their goals – either through working with support agencies or statutory intervention. This should be balanced by the social work view of what we are worried about, reached through critical reflection and an exploration of any bias. The assessment should lead us to identify the needs of the child and provide direction for service response.
Enhancing our assessment tools – a look to the future
For nearly 20 years there has been a legal requirement in England and Wales to identify and assist ‘children in need’. There is also evidence in Australia, Sweden, Canada and Ireland of children’s services needing to identify and address children’s needs (Axford, Green, Kalsbeek et al, 2009).
Axford, Green, Kalsbeek et al (2009) analysed
83 reports between 1999 and 2007 in two local authorities in England (one urban and one rural), focusing on the quality and usefulness of needs assessments for children. Their study found that there is still little information on the needs of children and what services are then provided.
The above findings are consistent with anecdotal reports in New Zealand. Our current assessment tools focus on the factors impacting on safe parenting rather than the specific needs of children. While we do know that there are many services for children, we do not know if the services match or indeed address their needs. In this context, ‘needs’ involves the circumstances or traits of the child that should be addressed in order for the child to be the best they can be and overcome the potential for adverse life outcomes.
We need to be able to name what the child requires and then provide the appropriate service response.
Our practice evidence and experience from other countries has led to us re-examining our practice tools and the way we assess the needs of children and their families. Currently, Child, Youth and
Family uses two key assessment tools to support assessment practice, the assessment triangle
(previously mentioned) and the family strengths and risks assessment (FSRA) tool. The assessment triangle is a visual tool of the strengths and risks assessment and provides prompts of what to think about when completing an assessment and in particular the FSRA.
1
To support and strengthen our internal assessment practice Child, Youth and Family is developing a child and family assessment tool with the aim of accurately identifying and addressing the needs of children and their families.
1 See http://www.practicecentre.cyf.govt.nz/policy/practice-tools/resources/ family-strengths-and-risks-assessment.html
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011

Specifically the assessment tool will prompt the identification of needs of each child according to their age and developmental stage as well as determine their level of need or degree of complexity. It will explore family strengths and risks in order to assist the matching of services with identified needs.
Summary
The key to a comprehensive assessment begins at the first contact. Building relationships with the child and their parents is critical to gathering information and ultimately making objective judgements regarding statutory intervention.
Our assessments need to be three dimensional and reflect all three sides of our assessment triangle. The child, oft described in a flat narrative way, needs to come alive for us to ensure we are aware of their needs and how we can best respond.
Assessment is ongoing and while we want to feel comfortable with our decisions, we need to embrace a feeling of uncertainty. This enables us to move away from a singular hypothesis and reflect on all of the available information. This allows a comprehensive, robust assessment that incorporates our views and those of the family.
By working together we are building a pathway to achieve mutual goals.
Children, young people and their families deserve the best response we can deliver and this begins with saying ‘Kia ora, kia orana, hello’.
REFERENCES
Axford, N., Green, V., Kalsbeek, A., Morpeth, L., & Palmer,
C. (2009). Measuring children’s needs: how are we doing?
Child & Family Social Work , 14, 243–254.
Barnes, V. & Chand, A. (2000). Initial assessments in child protection: The reality of practice. Practice , 12, 4, 5–16.
Brechin, A., Brown, H. & Eby, M. (2000). Critical Practice in
Health and Social Care . London: Sage.
Chapman, M. & Field, J. (2007). Strengthening our engagement with families and understanding practice depth. Social Work Now , December, 21–28.
Connolly, M. (2007). Practice frameworks: Conceptual maps to guide interventions in child welfare. British
Journal of Social Work , 37 (5), 825–837.
Connolly, M. (2008). How do I use the assessment framework in my visiting book? Panui , September (82).
Duncan, B. (2010). On Becoming a Better Therapist.
Washington, DC: APA.
Ferguson, H. (2004). Protecting Children in Time: Child abuse, child protection and the consequences of modernity . New York: Palgrave.
Field, J. (2008). Rethinking supervision and shaping future practice. Social Work Now , August, 11–18.
Holland, S. (2000). The assessment relationship: interactions between social workers and parents in child protection assessments. British Journal of Social Work , 30,
149–163.
Holland, S. (2001). Representing children in child protection assessments. Childhood , 8, 322–339.
Munro, E. (2002). Effective Child Protection . London: Sage.
Oxford University Press (2010) Oxford Dictionary of
English . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Parton, N. & O’Byrne, P. (2000) Constructive Social Work:
Towards a new practice . Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Perlman, H. 1972. The problem solving model in social casework. In R. Roberts & R. Nee (Eds.), Theory of Social
Casework . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Phillips, M. & Dutt, R. (1990) Towards a Black Perspective in Child Protection . London: Race Equality Unit.
Pithouse, A. & Atkinson, P. (1988). Telling the case:
Occupational narrative in a social work office. In N.
Coupland (Ed.), Styles of Discourse , 183–200. London:
Croom Helm.
Rees, C. (2010). All they need is love? Helping children to recover from neglect and abuse. Archives of Disease in
Childhood , September, 1–8.
Sparks, J. & Duncan, B. (2009). Common factors in couple and family therapy. In B. Duncan, S. Miller, B. Wampold
& M. Hubble (Eds.), The Heart and Soul of Change (2 nd ed) .
Washington, DC: APA.
Stanley, T. (2007). Risky work: Child protection practice.
Social Policy Journal of New Zealand , 30, 163–177.
Taylor, C. & White, S. (2006). Knowledge and reasoning in social work: Educating for humane judgement. British
Journal of Social Work , 36, 937–954.
Thoburn, J., Lewis, A., & Shemmings, D. (1995). Paternalism or Partnership? Family involvement in the child protection process . London: HSMO.
Turnell, A. & Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of Safety . New York:
W.W. Norton & Company.
9

10
Alex was first caught offending at age 11 years.
Social services had concerns for the safety and wellbeing of Alex and his siblings dating back to when he was just 3 years old. Now 15, Alex is alienated from education and despite attempts to ensure he is in stable accommodation, he is transient and often spends time living on the street. Alex has begun using solvents regularly and says that they are a cheaper form of “getting high” than alcohol. Well known to the police,
Alex has been through the youth justice process several times already.
Turning around the lives of young people like
Alex is challenging, and no one-size-fits-all form of intervention exists. There is, however, a growing body of research that supports our understanding of best practice in our work with young people and “what works” within the field of youth justice. One of the findings within this research is the importance of structured and reliable assessment within the fields of care and protection and youth justice.
As Greene (2008, p. 18) describes:
“the purpose of assessment is to bring together the various facets … of a client’s situation, and the interaction among them, in an orderly economical manner and to then select salient and effective interventions.”
In recognising that assessment is fundamental to effective intervention, Child, Youth and
Family has developed and implemented a new assessment tool that is specific to working with young people. TRAX, a tool to support young people to stay on track, was developed and implemented in 2010 to be used across the organisation by both care and protection and youth justice services. This article explores the introduction of this new tool, outlining the theoretical basis of its development and discussing the practice imperatives surrounding its application.
The development of TRAX
Better assessment leads to better outcomes. This concept is supported by a significant body of research, but will also be familiar to most social workers as they engage in reflective practice.
For Child, Youth and Family, the benefits are manifold and stretch across client, practitioner and organisation. Redefining the organisation’s approach to assessment has meant drawing on the evidence from research, as well as the experiences of other countries.
In New Zealand, addressing youth crime is one of the government’s current key priorities. As such, significant changes across the field of youth justice were seen in 2010. Central to these reforms was the introduction of new legislation within the Children, Young Persons, and their
Families (CYP&F) Act 1989. Known as ‘Fresh Start’,
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011

the reforms aimed to target persistent and high risk young offenders and have had an impact across the justice sector. For Child, Youth and
Family, the changes have been significant and have affected how we work with children and young people who offend.
It could be argued, however, that the most significant shift is ideological. This is evident in the introduction of a new youth justice principle within legislation. The change this heralds is subtle, but very important. The principle states that “any measure for dealing with offending by a child or young person should so far as it is practicable to do so address the causes underlying the child’s or young person’s offending” (section 208 (fa): CYP&F
Act 1989). Some argue that this blurs the line of responsibility between child protection and youth justice. While child protection may argue that ‘areas of need’ are best addressed by within their remit, others argue that they may be addressed within the context of youth justice.
For others, this provides an opportunity to go beyond the limitations of holding young people to account and instead focus on addressing factors that impact on their propensity towards crime.
To accommodate the necessary change, we needed to ensure our youth justice practitioners had the right tools for the job. This has meant introducing a new assessment tool as well as rationalising the policy and guidelines surrounding its application. Rather than adopt a tool already in use, we determined that we would tailor our own to fit our unique cultural, organisational and legal context. Since 1999, the
Wellbeing Assessment has been used to assess the needs of young people. Although this tool has served as an excellent resource, a decade on, it falls short of meeting the principles of current
‘best practice’. The Wellbeing Assessment has served as an excellent foundation from which we have been able to build an assessment tool to meet the needs of contemporary practice in care and protection and in youth justice.
TRAX took nearly two years to develop and was rolled out in September 2010. The time and care needed to develop TRAX can largely be attributed to the fact that it was designed for use across care and protection and youth justice services.
Working with young people in child protection is a very specific area of practice that relies upon its own models and theories. Working with young people who offend is also specialised, managing the tension between meeting needs and addressing accountability. Redefining our approach to assessment has meant drawing together both these fields of practice to find much more than a middle ground.
Building the tool from the theory
“He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may cast.” Leonardo da Vinci
During a training session an experienced social worker asked on what basis we were making changes to the way we assess young people. In her own words she “liked to know that things weren’t pulled out of thin air”. In essence, this social worker was asking what theoretical basis underpinned the introduction of this new assessment tool and wanted some validation that there were practice imperatives behind it.
The ability to locate any new initiative within an evidence base is essential if we are to aspire to ‘best practice’. The introduction of the
TRAX assessment tool and the changes to the assessment pathway are firmly rooted in what we know works when working with young people.
On the verge of independence, a young person is neither adult nor child. The physical, emotional and mental development of this stage of life is unique. Erik Erikson (1902–1994), a renowned psychologist who concentrated his life’s work on human development, claimed that adolescence is primarily concerned with forming identity
11

12
(Carlson & Buskist, 1997). This striving for identity is characterised by a search for new experiences, social connectedness and engagement in risky behaviour, and is known to bring about its fair share of trials and tribulations.
And as the following quote portrays, the turbulence of adolescence is not confined to today’s youth:
“I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words ... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise
[disrespectful] and impatient of restraint.”
Hesiod, 8th century BC
Most young people negotiate their way through this period to become well-adjusted adults. However, a minority will struggle to circumnavigate the ‘boulders’ that appear on the road to self-identity and independence.
Some will push every social norm and boundary and be tagged ‘at risk’. This group will often come into contact with the law, have difficulties within the education system, and be over-represented in mental health and addiction services.
Engagement and assessment is a critical phase of social work practice. It usually forms the first stepping stone in the client–practitioner relationship across most fields – whether it be child protection, justice, health or one of many other specialised areas where social work involves working directly with clients.
The assumption is intervening appropriately requires sufficient information about a problem or situation (Greene, 2008). The perspective that prevails as a theoretical basis for most social work assessment (ibid.) is that the interaction between people and their environment is fundamental.
Rosetti (1980, p. 50) believes that “adolescence constitutes perhaps the most intensive period of adjustment between the individual and his social environment”. This means that in order to understand the situation of a young person and try to intervene effectively we need a theoretical framework that is firmly located in understanding the relationship between the person and their environment. This is a key aspect of social work knowledge and expertise.
The closely aligned ‘systems’ and ‘ecological systems’ theories provide the basis for understanding and interpreting the individual within the context of their environment. Systems theory is able to “provide social workers with a conceptual perspective that can guide how they view the world” (Kirst-Ashman & Grafton, 2009, p. 9). Originally described by Goldstein (1973, p.
110) as “a framework for gaining appreciation of the entire range of elements that bear on a social problem”, systems theory and the Unitary
Approaches defined by Goldstein (1973) and Pincus and Minahan (1973 and 1977) still resonate today.
Following a ‘person-in-their-environment’ perspective, the ecological systems theory also explores the effect the environment has on the child (Kirst-Ashman & Grafton, 2009). The ecological model first proposed by Bronfenbrenner
(1979) describes four levels (micro, meso, exto and macro 2 ) of interaction between the person and the systems that impact on their experience. The model provides a tangible way of understanding the interaction between people and the systems that impact on them. The approach helps us to understand that...
(Pardeck, 1996, p. 2).
Te Whare Tapa Whä is a model of Mäori wellbeing developed by Mason Durie (1998). It has been influential in the development of TRAX.
2 i.e. between individuals, between groups of individuals, between systems that peripherally impact on individuals, and the societal system.
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011

Te Whare Tapa Whä is a model that describes the interaction of systems from a cultural perspective unique to Mäori. Using the image of a wharenui (meeting house) with its four sides, four cornerstones or components of health are described. These are:
• Taha Wairua (faith and connection to spiritual realm)
• Taha Hinengaro (thoughts and feelings – connection between mind and body)
• Taha Tinana (the capacity for physical growth and development)
• Taha Whanau (belonging, caring and sharing within family and wider social systems) (Durie,
1998).
Each of the dimensions share equal standing.
Maintenance of equilibrium among them reveals itself in the health and wellbeing of an individual
(ibid). This model recognises the importance of exploring cultural considerations and family/ whänau viewpoints alongside physical and emotional development and faith and spirituality.
Finally, it is essential that reference is made to the strengths-based approach born in the 1990s.
It could be argued that this school of thought, more than any other, has helped transform the paradigm of traditional problem-based assessments towards a more client-centred and
‘hope’ engendered approach in social work. The basic assumption of strengths-based theory is that “people possess unique strengths, skills and abilities … [and are able to] create solutions where none seem possible” (Graybeal, 2001, p. 233).
Based on this view there has been a dramatic shift in focus from pure appraisal of a client’s deficits towards a more holistic assessment that enquires about the unique strengths that a client has.
The approaches described above provide the theoretical foundation for the development of a new assessment tool. TRAX is in fact based on the amalgamation of these approaches, and this has helped to develop a tool that is broad enough to comprehensively explore a young person’s wellbeing and situation.
A youth justice paradigm
“The cure for crime is not the electric chair, but the high chair.” J. Edgar Hoover
There has been growing interest in the field of youth justice. How we can turn around the lives of young people like Alex has become a key political agenda item and is omnipresent in the media. In New Zealand, this is perhaps due to the rise in the frequency and severity of crime committed by young people (Chong, 2007). The cost of youth crime to society is significant in both human and financial terms, making it one of the key issues of today.
The growing interest in youth justice has mirrored an increase in our understanding of the best ways to work with young people who offend. We now know that a small number of young people are responsible for the majority of serious offences (ibid.).
(McLaren, 2000; Becroft, 2004).
The paradigm shift from ‘nothing works’ to ‘what works’ within the field of justice has occurred over the past 50 years (McLaren, 2000; Andrews
& Bonta, 2007; Day,Howells & Rickwood,
2004). There is a vast body of research that demonstrates there are strategies that work in the management and rehabilitation of offending populations. Of all the research there is none perhaps more influential than the “Risk-Need-
Responsivity” (RNR) model first formalised in 1990 by Bonta, Andrews and Hoge. This approach has been adopted in other youth justice jurisdictions across the globe, including the United Kingdom,
Australia and Canada (Andrews & Bonta, 2007).
Although there have been adaptations over the years, the three founding principles of the RNR model are:
• Risk Principle – Match the level of service to the offenders risk to re-offend.
13

14
• Need Principle – Assess criminogenic needs and target them in treatment.
• Responsivity Principle – Maximise the offender’s ability to learn from a rehabilitative intervention by providing cognitive behavioural treatment and tailoring the intervention to the learning style, abilities and strengths of the offender (Andrews & Bonta,
2007, p. 1).
The RNR model provides a framework for intervention within youth justice. Central to this framework is the use of comprehensive risk and needs assessment tools. When a comprehensive risk and needs assessment is combined with a service delivery targeted at those who are most
‘at-risk’, the impact on rates of recidivism can be marked (Thompson & Stewart, 2006).
There is, however, a science behind the type of assessment tool used and evidence suggests that contemporary youth justice systems need to adopt a ‘fourth generation tool’ in order to achieve the best results. Experts such as Andrews and Bonta (2007) believe a more comprehensive tool, which captures both static (amenable to change) and dynamic factors (not able to change), and allows for a level of professional discretion, is much more reliable and beneficial
(ibid).
Research identifies variables associated with the likelihood of an individual re-offending.
These variables can either be dynamic or static. Dynamic factors include aspects such as criminality of peers and attitudes and beliefs; static factors on the other hand, include things like age of first offence (Andrews & Bonta, 2007).
Whilst earlier risk assessment was primarily concerned with the identification of static factors, fourth generation tools capture both, but are more concerned with those that are dynamic. These dynamic factors that are known to be empirically associated with offending behaviour are called ‘criminogenic needs’
(Thompson & Stewart, 2006). Researchers and practitioners alike argue that this approach is more beneficial because it gives an indication of risk, but also captures the underlying causes and provides guidance for intervention (Andrews &
Bonta, 2007; Thompson & Stewart, 2006, Day et al, 2004).
Fourth generation tools utilise knowledge gained from ‘what works’ alongside professional discretion and responsivity. The inclusion of professional discretion means that these types of tools balance the use of scientific evidence and clinical decision-making; ultimately there will be a level of ‘override’ available to practitioners to influence the overall judgement of risk. The responsivity principle is an important addition to the RNR model as it takes into account individual difference. Responsivity factors are “those that could influence how interventions might be best delivered taking into account individual differences” (Thompson & Stewart, 2006, p.
22) and include aspects such as age, gender, disability and culture.
Walking the line between wellbeing and accountability
“Everything in life ... has to have balance.”
Donna Karan
Developing an assessment tool for use in both child protection and youth justice requires that its theoretical underpinnings come from both fields of practice. The result is a tool that is young person-centred, allowing practitioners to analyse both the offending behaviour and the young person’s general wellbeing. Whilst care and protection practitioners are able to view the young person’s wellbeing as paramount, those working in the field of youth justice have to balance wellbeing with accountability and public safety. In the view of Principal Youth Court
Judge Andrew Becroft (2004, p. 10), “generally we have been successful in holding young people accountable and encouraging them to accept responsibility for their behaviour. However we
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011

Environment
Actions and intentions
Motivation
Culture & beliefs
Attitudes
Living circumstances
Education/employment
Community and recreation
Relationships
Family/whänau/aiga
Peers
Boyfriends/girlfriends
Other important people
Beliefs and behaviours
Mental health – “head space”
Substance use
General health
Health
Megan Dickie, 2010 have been less successful in addressing their needs, addressing the causes of their offending and assisting them not to re-offend”.
The diagram explains the model used to develop
TRAX and has been derived from the theories outlined within this article. The young person is in the centre, with the four domains of environment, relationships, health and their own beliefs and behaviours surrounding them. The young person and the factors that surround them are in a constant state of interaction with one another. Each domain consists of a series of subdomains – for instance within the environment domain, living circumstances, community and recreation and education and employment are all covered. A series of factors are considered within each sub-domain. Under the heading of living environment, for example, enquires are made
15

16 about the young person’s home life as part of a set of key considerations such as safety, stability and supervision. Similarly the area of education and employment explores the young person’s engagement, attendance and achievements.
Each of the factors considered has the potential to act as a source of strength, need or risk. Quite simply, the areas of need identified within TRAX will be the targets for intervention. For instance, if a TRAX assessment was completed with Alex, it would highlight that there were areas of need regarding education, alcohol and drugs, and his living situation.
For Alex, we know little of his strengths at the moment, but if we were to complete a TRAX and enquire about strengths we might start to see a more hope-engendered future for him.
The factors considered in each sub-domain include both static and dynamic factors that are correlated with the likelihood of reoffending.
These factors are relevant to both child protection and youth justice workers: aspects such as engagement in education are equally important to both fields, but their meaning is interpreted in different ways. Through the child protection lens, when a young person is not attending school this is an area of need that impacts on wellbeing; through the youth justice lens, when a young person is not attending school, their idle time and lack of participation in education places them at greater risk of future offending. Because TRAX has been built digitally within CYRAS, the Child, Youth and
Family case recording system, it is able to include unique features that go beyond the limitations of paper-based assessments. These features include the ability to select the field of practice at the beginning of the assessment. Features, such as an offence analysis and a measure of offending-related need are unique to the youth justice version and give life to the ‘risk principle’ referred to in the RNR model.
Drawing on diverse theories and models to develop a tool for use in youth justice and care and protection has been challenging, but ultimately has yielded a better result. The reality for many of our high-risk young people is that they come into contact with both care and protection and youth justice services in the organisation. Using the one tool to help understand and assess their situation offers greater consistency.
Bridging the gap from theory to practice
“In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is.” Yogi
Berra
The development of an assessment tool on its own is not going to lead to reduced offending or better outcomes for young people at risk.
The tool is merely a vehicle. Although TRAX aims to support a practitioner’s analysis and guide targeted intervention, it is essential that we consider the practice imperatives for the introduction of a new tool. This means considering the framework within which the tool is applied, as well as the practitioner’s ability to engage, analyse and apply critical thought to their assessment.
The development of TRAX provided a unique opportunity to reconsider the assessment pathway within Child, Youth and Family. As part of the project, we undertook an evaluation of how the existing assessment tools were being used and a review of the policy, legal and practice context within which assessment occurs.
This revealed that the approach to assessing young people within care and protection and youth justice could be strengthened. Practice varied and although policy was adhered to, there seemed to be few examples of going beyond policy and using assessment as a means of achieving better planning and outcomes for young people.
Redefining the operational policy, providing guidance on assessment with young people and delivery of training are just some of the tangible
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011

steps taken to improve the assessment pathway.
We know that not all children or young people referred to Child, Youth and Family on the basis of offending or care and protection require an indepth social work assessment, however determining who does can at times be difficult.
Therefore the approach is two-fold: improve the policy and place greater emphasis on using consultation and professional judgement to determine the need. In tackling these, we have updated Operational Policy and placed particular emphasis on ensuring all those considered ‘highrisk’ go through a comprehensive assessment process using TRAX and that this information is available for key decision-making points such as family group conferences and Court.
A practitioner’s willingness, skill and ability are quintessential to undertaking thorough, considered and meaningful assessment; similarly their ability to take assessment findings and translate them into enduring and effective interventions is crucial. Like a builder who can never blame his tools, social workers have been trained to translate the use of a resource such as TRAX into practice. Engagement with the young person, their family/whänau, and other professionals is essential; so too is their ability to analyse and interpret the information gleaned.
From here, effective intervention is born.
The beginning of this article started with a brief description of Alex and the challenges he was facing. Tales of lives like Alex’s are commonplace in the field of social work.
TRAX is a resource to help social workers in their efforts to be agents of change. Alex needs someone who can walk alongside him and understand his needs, hopes, dreams and strengths; however he also needs someone with the expertise to guide, advocate and act. If
Alex had the kind of social worker with these practice skills who undertook an assessment using TRAX, the context of his situation would be better understood. The social worker’s ability to analyse the situation entirely would mean that
Alex’s strengths, needs and risks would be clearly identified so that effective intervention planning could begin.
REFERENCES
Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. ( 2007). Risk-Need-Responsivity
Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation.
Ottawa: Public Safety Canada.
Becroft, A. (2004). Youth Justice in New Zealand: Future challenges – A paper presented at the New Zealand Youth
Justice Conference . Wellington: New Zealand Youth Court.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chong, J. (2007). Youth Justice Statistics in New Zealand
1992–2006 . Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Carlson, N. & Buskist, W. (1997). P sychology: The science of behavior (5th ed) . Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Day, A., Howells, K. & Rickwood, D. (2004). Current
Trends in the Rehabilitation of Juvenile Offenders. Trends
& Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, no. 284 . Canberra:
Australian Institute of Criminology.
Durie, M. (1998). Whaiora: Mäori Health Development
(2nd ed) . Auckland: Oxford University Press.
Goldstein, H. (1973). Social Work Practice: A unitary approach . South Carolina: University of South Carolina
Press.
Graybeal, C. (2001). Strengths-based social work assessment: Transforming the dominant paradigm. Families in Society , 82(3), 233–242.
Greene, R.R. (2008). Human behaviour theory, person in environment. In R.R. Greene (Ed.), Human Behaviour
Theory and Social Work . Brunswick, New Jersey:
Transaction Publishers.
Kirst-Ashman, K.K. & Grafton, H.H. (2009). Understanding
Generalist Practice (5th ed) . Belmont, USA: Brooks/Cole.
McLaren, K. (2000). Tough is not Enough. Getting Smart about Youth Crime . Wellington: Ministry of Youth Affairs.
Pardeck, J.T. (1996). An Ecological Approach . Westport,
USA: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Pincus, A. & Minahan, A. (1973). Social Work Practice:
Model and Method . Itasca, ILL: F. E. Peacock.
Pincus, A. & Minahan, A. (1977) Social Work Practice:
Model and Method. In H. Specht & A. Vickery (Eds.)
Integrating Social Work Methods . London: Allen & Unwin.
Rosetti, F. (1980). The relevance of unitary models in social work with adolescents. In R. Jones & C. Pritchard (Eds.),
Social Work with Adolescents . London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul Ltd.
Thompson, C. & Stewart, A. (2006). Review of Empirically
Based Risk/Needs Assessment Tools for Youth Justice:
Amended report for public release . Brisbane: Griffith
University.
17

18
Assessing parenting capacity is a core component of child protection social work and something that all social workers do from their very first interaction with a parent. An assessment of parenting capacity involves determining the parent’s capacity, insight and knowledge to provide safe and appropriate care for their child.
Assessing parenting capacity is not a ‘one-off’ exercise; continual review may indicate the need for further assessment at different points in time to ensure the care being provided to the child is continuing to meet their needs.
This article begins with a general overview of the factors that child protection social workers consider when undertaking a parenting capacity assessment, including the importance of putting the child at the centre of the assessment and understanding the impact that one’s own values and beliefs can have on the process. From there it provides practical suggestions on the areas explored in the assessment of parenting capacity as well as things to consider when bringing everything together.
Defining ‘competent parenting’, ‘parenting capacity’ and ‘parenting ability’
Statutory social workers often struggle with feeling like they have to ‘decide’ if a parent is competent and has the capacity to carry out their parenting role safely and appropriately.
This intrusion into a usually private area of family life can be a daunting and overwhelming proposition, and one that sits uncomfortably for many social workers.
This then lays the foundation for analysing this information to help formulate an evidencebased conclusion about the parent’s capacity to provide enduring safe care for their child within a particular setting.
In undertaking this task, social workers begin with a baseline definition of the term
‘competent’ as it applies to parenting. It is important to have a clear understanding about the attributes and qualities one would expect to see in a competent parent so as to measure these against the attributes and qualities of the parent being assessed. One such definition is that “competent parents are simply people who show through their behaviour that they care about what happens to their children and who can restrain themselves from seriously harming them” (Westman, 1994, p. 28–29). A competent parent needs to provide their child with the core elements of care such as clothing, nutrition, shelter, education and health care, but Westman
(1994) suggests they also need to:
• be able to learn and relate to others
• develop abilities to delay gratifying immediate urges
• be able to tolerate frustration
• adhere to generally accepted values that restrain adults from harming others
• have the skills and knowledge to balance affection while limiting poor behaviour
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011

• react consistently to their child’s behaviour
• be involved in their child’s life within their community.
Azar, Lauretti and Loding (1998) and Azar and
Cote (2002) expand this further and state that competent parenting is about adaptability and more specifically about being able to adapt positively to the changing needs and circumstances of their child. A literature review by the Commonwealth of Australia (2004) identified three themes of adaptability:
• Perceptiveness: The acuteness of the parent’s awareness of their child, what is happening around their child, and the effects of their behaviour on the child.
• Responsiveness: The extent to which the parent connects with their child, is sensitive to their needs, and responds to them with affection.
• Flexibility: The ability of the parent to react in different ways according to the situation at hand.
Social workers need to be able to make the distinction between ‘parenting capacity’ and
‘parenting ability’. A person may be able to parent for a short period of time within a specific setting (i.e. a supervised visit at a neutral location), thus demonstrating parenting ability.
However, this does not demonstrate the capacity of that person to parent effectively in the long term (Conley, 2003). Parenting capacity is context driven, and highly dependent on factors such as culture, values and beliefs, socioeconomic circumstances, and proximity to family support
(White, 2005).
Assumptions and biases on the part of the assessor may directly impact on the interpretation and weight given to information gathered for a parenting capacity assessment
(Choate, 2009; Budd & Holdsworth, 1996).
Holland (2004) developed a checklist that assessors can use as a way of bringing preconceived ideas and values to the forefront of their thinking to help minimise the effect this may have on the integrity of the assessment:
• What do I know about individuals who have these life experiences?
• Where does my knowledge come from?
• What prejudices (both positive and negative) may I hold?
• What might surprise me and why would it be a surprise?
• How might I be perceived by this parent/ family?
• How might the assessment be perceived by this parent/family?
• How might the agency be perceived by this parent/family?
• What agency norms and practices do I bring with me when undertaking an assessment?
(cited in Sawyer, 2009).
The issues around defining competent parenting and parenting capacity and understanding the impact of preconceived ideas and values highlight the importance of regular supervision for those undertaking parenting capacity assessments. Supervisors play a critical role in helping assessors stand back, reflect on their practice, and critique their reasoning and decision-making (Horwath, 2002).
Social workers also need to be realistic and remember that being a competent parent and having the capacity to parent is not about being ‘super-human’, ‘perfect’ or functioning at an ‘optimal’ level. Instead, an assessment of parenting capacity needs to employ a reasonable standard of parenting that ensures the
“parenting is adequate to meet the basic safety and emotional needs of the child … [and that it considers] the lowest threshold of parenting skills necessary to protect a child’s welfare, given the risks and protective factors present in the family”
(Budd, 2005, p. 433).
19

20
Reasons for assessing parenting capacity
Within the context of child protection, maintaining a child’s relationship with their parent, be it in the form of contact visits or permanent placement in the parent’s care, is of prime importance.
This concept of family preservation is a fundamental principle of the Children, Young
Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, and is specifically stated in section 5(b): “The principle that, wherever possible, the relationship between a child or young person and his or her family, whänau, hapü, iwi, and family group should be maintained and strengthened” (p. 37).
An assessment of pare nting capacity within the child protection milieu happens within the context of:
• evaluating the safety of a child in their parent’s care
• considering removing a child (including unborn children) from their parent
• planning to return a child home
• weighing up the suitability of a parent to have contact with their child when it has been decided the child won’t return home.
In any context, an assessment of parenting capacity sets out to determine if the parent, in respect of their child, can provide a safe, stable and predictable environment that will support the child’s development (Steinhauser, 1991). It does this by developing an understanding of the parent’s own strengths and vulnerabilities, the strengths and vulnerabilities that exist within the parent-child relationship, the parent’s ability to meet their child’s individual, basic safety and emotional needs, and the parent’s ability to seek and accept appropriate support for themselves and their child as and when needed.
In addition to assessing parenting capacity, the circumstances that led to the assessment need careful consideration. For instance, some assessments of parenting capacity will be undertaken when a child has been out of the care of their parent for months or even years. The degree to which the separation affected the child will depend on a number of factors including the child’s age, the nature of the relationship and contact between the parent and child during the placement, the quality of the care provided by the caregiver, and how well the caregiver was known to the child prior to the placement
(Steinhauser, 1991). In these situations, the assessment will additionally need to identify support for the child; it may be helpful to engage a specialist in the attachment field to work with the parent and child to help strengthen their relationship.
Putting the child at the centre of the assessment
Child-centred practice is at the heart of effective child protection. From the outset, it is vital that the needs of the child are accurately identified and placed at the centre of the parenting capacity assessment (White,
2005) and, in fact, any assessment undertaken within the child protection context. Parenting capacity assessments are “a planned process of identifying concerns about a child’s welfare, eliciting information about the functioning of the parent/s and the child, and forming an opinion as to whether the child’s needs are being satisfied” (Reder, Duncan & Lucey, 2003, p. 3).
The assessment needs to take into account the child’s special needs, any disability, issues of ethnicity and culture, temperament, and the special meaning of the child to their parent
(Basarab-Horwath, 2001). The parenting capacity assessment also needs to understand that while a parent may be able to successfully care for one child, the nature or demands of another child could be beyond that parent’s capacity (Choate,
2009).
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011

Assessing parenting capacity: A five-pronged approach
A comprehensive assessment of parenting capacity entails careful triangulation to obtain an accurate picture. This includes gathering primary and secondary information from the following areas:
Review of records/history
Records are an essential part of understanding the circumstances of a case (Reder, Duncan &
Lucey, 2003), and an assessment of parenting capacity is as much an evaluation of currently held information as it is the evaluation of new information. Interrogation of records such as child protection files, school reports, medical reports (including mental health and drug and alcohol evaluations), counselling reports, and conviction and probation records can be valuable.
Records provide the assessor with an understanding of what has previously happened, what patterns of behaviour have developed over time, and what therapeutic interventions have been tried and the degree to which these were successful. Reviewing records also provides the assessor with the opportunity to add to, correct and clarify existing information as part of the assessment, rather than just duplicating what is already known (Budd, 2005).
Interview with parent/s
The number of interviews needed with the parent for the completion of an assessment of parenting capacity needs consideration. The assessor also needs to be aware of the concept of
‘faking good’. A parent will likely always answer questions or act in a way that portrays them in the most positive light (Budd & Holdsworth,
1996). In a single interview they will usually be able to make a positive impression and the assessor needs to be able to see past this façade.
More interactions with the parent will lend greater authenticity to an assessor’s view and illustrate the stresses that emerge from multiple contacts (Choate, 2009).
A parenting couple should be interviewed together and separately. Being interviewed together helps the assessor see their interaction with each other, while separate interviews allow a parent to provide information they may have withheld in the presence of the other parent.
Particular areas to consider include:
• Is one parent dominant over the other?
• Is information provided as a couple consistent with information obtained individually?
• How might this interaction impact on the child?
There are a number of practical arrangements that can facilitate useful interviews. The environment where the interviews occur is important. A parent will likely be more relaxed in their own home, although this location might contain distractions and present safety issues for the assessor (Harnett, 2007); on the other hand, the assessor’s own workplace may seem safer to the worker but may represent a power imbalance to the parent. The length of interview sessions is also important – parents who become tired or unfocused are unlikely to produce a true picture of themselves and their life. Setting realistic timeframes will help create a smooth interview, but it is also useful to note that if parents tire or lose focus in a short space of time it may be an indication of an issue that may impact on their parenting ability. Also, the parent being assessed is likely to be quite nervous which may show through in the answers they give, reinforcing the importance of seeing a parent several times.
Interview with child
Every opportunity should be taken to gain the child’s view of their parent, in whatever way will allow them to express their point of view. This may mean interviewing them on their own (if age appropriate) or with support from another adult, sibling or close friend. The assessor should allow the child to describe the relationship they have with their parent, the role that this parent plays in their life, and their understanding
21

22 of boundary-setting in the home and how consequences are managed (Choate, 2009).
Interviews with children are generally challenging, and even more so in the context of a parenting capacity assessment. It is important to bear in mind that the child may feel pressured or coerced by the parent into providing overly positive feedback about them or they may have complex feelings about their parents. In some cases, the child may simply be unable to directly express how they feel, particularly if they have been led to believe their safety is at risk if they do. Such children may suggest much more about their feelings and experiences through drawings and play than they would in response to direct questions (Steinhauser, 1991).
Confidentiality needs careful reflection and how the child’s information will be used needs to be thought through and communicated to the child (in an age appropriate way), particularly if the assessment will likely be shared with the parents. The child’s information may differ from their parent’s information and if the parent is confronted with this it may place the child at risk, and cause the child to recant their story, deny what they said or learn that disclosure is not safe (Choate, 2009).
Interviews with other key people
Valuable sources of parent and child functioning
(Haynes, 2010) can be elicited from interviews with people who know the parent well, such as whänau, friends, caseworkers, medical professionals and employers. Interviews with other key people are also useful in providing details about the parent’s strengths, vulnerabilities and progress, and confirming or countering claims made by the parent (Budd,
2005).
A good assessor should model transparency and attempt to obtain parental permission to contact these people. If a parent is reluctant to provide permission, this may indicate issues about transparency on the part of the parent.
Similarly, the assessor needs to ensure that the people they talk to are aware the comments they make during their interviews may end up in the assessment report and that this report will likely be seen by the parent.
Observation of parent–child interactions
Observing the parent and child together is an essential part of the assessment process.
Observations may highlight strengths and vulnerabilities not observed in an interview situation, and may also provide an index of the parent’s attempts to demonstrate their best parenting skills (Budd, 2005). Observations that occur in a place familiar to the parent and child will provide the assessor with the best opportunity to see the normal environment in which the child lives or has lived (Choate, 2009).
The assessor may set up structured tasks for the family, such as an excursion to the park or grocery shopping, which create a moderate degree of stress (Hynan, 2003), or they may choose to observe ‘naturally’ stressful activities such as getting the child ready for school, doing homework, or preparing the evening meal. In observing the parent and child, the assessor will look for the following:
• Do the parent and child ignore each other?
• Does either constantly and obtrusively demand the other’s attention?
• To what extent do they talk, listen and make eye contact?
• Does the parent respond appropriately to their child’s demands for attention, or do they appear distracted, uninterested or annoyed when the child tries to engage them?
• Is the parent’s need for control or to express affection so intrusive that they cannot allow the child to explore freely or play independently?
• Are the parent’s expectations of the child reasonable or excessive?
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011

• Does the parent let the child speak for them, or do they always try to answer for them?
• Does the parent limit inappropriate behaviour or do they pretend to ignore it?
• If asked to set appropriate limits, can the parent do so effectively and without confrontation and/or excessive harshness?
(Steinhauser, 1991, p. 95).
Assessing the parenting capacity of parents with mental illness, addiction issues or disability
It cannot be assumed that simply because a parent has a mental illness, substance abuse problem or disability they are limited in their capacity to parent (Benjet, Azar & Kuerston-
Hogan, 2003). However, these conditions can be a cause for concern if they are seen to impact on the parent’s skills, judgement and availability to meet their child’s needs (Bartha & Gonclaves,
1996). Determining the actual impact will require knowing:
• the nature, extent and duration of the parent’s condition
• the effect of the condition on the parent’s responsiveness and behaviour
• whether or not there have been remissions (in the case of substance abuse)
• whether another unaffected parent is in the home
• the child’s age
• the extent of the child’s ability to understand their parent’s behaviour
• the availability of other family members and supports to compensate for the parent’s incapacity (Steinhauser, 1991).
Although applicable to all parenting capacity assessments, there are two useful points to consider when looking at parents with mental illness, addiction issues or disabilities. Research shows that there are three protective factors that increase a child’s resilience to the developmental risks they face when a parent has a disability or is otherwise incapacitated: attributes of the child; positive emotional ties within a family; and external support systems for both the parent and child (Mirfin-Veitch, 2003).
When assessing parents with mental illness, addiction issues or disability, Risley-Curtiss,
Stromwall, Hunt & Teska (2004) suggest gathering and analysing information about the nature of the relationship between parent and child, the parent’s ability to manage stress, their acceptance of responsibility, the adequacy and effectiveness of the parent’s current treatment and the likelihood they are able to provide ‘good enough’ parenting over the course of childhood.
Motivation of the parent to seek assistance is also considered a key variable (Schutz et al, 1989).
For parents who are taking medication or participating in a treatment programme where they are using substances at lower than usual levels or have stopped using substances completely, the parenting capacity assessment will need to consider the capacity of the parent to provide safe care for the child in the event that they stop taking their medication or return to abusing substances.
Support agencies that work directly with the parent often operate using a ‘parental advocacy’ approach that is likely to be at odds with the child-centred approach employed within the child protection field, and this needs to temper the information they provide. While it is important that the assessor takes the time to see the world through the parent’s eyes, this should never be done at the expense of the child’s best interests.
A parenting capacity assessment of a parent who has some type of disability, mental health or substance abuse problem requires the expertise of someone who has specific knowledge pertaining to the particular needs of the parent, and who can work alongside the social worker to complete the assessment.
23

Areas of exploration in an assessment of parenting capacity
In 2009 Child, Youth and Family introduced the
Assessment Framework Triangle, which draws on and expands the prompts in the British
Assessment Framework Triangle. These reference tools highlight key assessment areas that contribute to achieving safety, wellbeing and permanency for the children and young people they work with.
24
Resiliency
Parenting skills and knowledge
Emotional and Behavioural
Development
Identity
Family and Social/Peer
Relationships
Child/Young Person’s
Need Parenting
SAFETY
PERMANENCY
WELLBEING
Attachment/Bonding
Capacity
Willingness and Capacity
Factors Impacting on
Safe Parenting
Guidance and
Supervision
Family/whanau and Environmental Factors
Community Resources Finances/Employment/housing
Social and community supports
Family history and Functioning
Bringing it all together
When pulling everything together to complete their assessment, the assessor should:
“strive for a balanced presentation by discussing parenting strengths as well as weaknesses, identifying possible precipitants and maintaining variables for parenting problems, suggesting possible interventions to address difficulties, and forthrightly addressing limitations in the assessment”
(Budd, 2005, p. 435)
Additionally, the assessor needs to consider how parental strengths translate into protective factors for the child, the issues that may tip the parent’s vulnerabilities over to risk, parent’s capacity for and acceptance to change, and whether change can occur within a timeframe that is in the child’s best interests. A strong, evidence-based analysis is vital in the completion of the parenting capacity assessment.
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011

These tools offer invaluable prompts that can assist in undertaking parental capacity assessments. In particular, the ‘parenting capacity’ side of the triangle, highlights the following factors:
• Resiliency: Resiliency is demonstrated when people use their skills, strengths and knowledge to cope with problems or setbacks. Parents who lack resilience may become overwhelmed when a challenge arises and use unhealthy coping strategies to manage the challenge.
• Parenting skills and knowledge: A person’s childhood experiences of being parented will have a strong bearing on their own parenting abilities. The parent’s sensitivity to their child’s cues, interaction with their child, discipline methods, parenting style and ability to display competent parenting for extended periods of time are important factors to consider. This is an area where it is particularly useful for the assessor to be mindful of their own values and judgements.
• Ensuring safety: This is about looking at the parent’s ability to provide basic care for their child now and in the future, the nature of the parent’s contact and interaction with their child (e.g. warm and affectionate or overly punitive and abusive), and their ability to keep their child safe and protect them from harm and dangerous situations.
• Attachment and bonding: A secure attachment between a parent and their child requires the presence of a warm and caring relationship, and a parent who is consistently available. Understanding the parent’s own experience of attachment as they grew up will help inform their ability to develop a secure attachment with their own child.
• Willingness and capacity: Denial of responsibility for injuries or a refusal to accept concerns is a negative indicator to safe care in the future. A parent who recognises they can be a better parent is more likely to be motivated to, and capable of, change.
• Factors impacting on safe parenting: Such factors include stress, substance abuse, physical or intellectual disability, mental illness, relationship and family stability, social supports, history of violence, physical living environment, ability to put their child’s needs first, and spiritual/religious considerations.
• Guidance and supervision: Parents need to role-model appropriate behaviour, control their emotions, and set appropriate boundaries so their child can develop an internal model of values and behaviour appropriate to the society in which they will grow up
Even though these assessments provide a
‘snapshot in time’, they need to anticipate the capacity of the parent over the long term.
Narrowing the focus to what the parent might be able to do in the short term with supervision and supports does not ensure safety for the child in the long term (Conley, 2003). One approach to consider is the parent’s response to any prior intervention that has been offered in an attempt to improve their parental functioning (Budd &
Holdsworth, 1996).
When suggesting possible interventions, the assessor should bear in mind that parents can only do so much, and overloading them with tasks and activities is, in reality, setting them up to fail (Choate, 2009).
A phased approach is often useful, whereby the interventions are listed in order of importance and parents are tested with a few at a time.
If the assessment does not support a child remaining or returning home, the assessor needs to be clear with the parent about how and why this decision has been made. If the assessor is recommending the child returns to the parent’s care, they need to talk with the family about how the transition might best be managed, and within what sort of timeframes.
25

26
Conclusion
The assessment of a parent’s capacity to care for their child is an important task in the child protection context. The outcome could determine whether or not a child remains or returns to their parent’s care, or has any contact with their parent at all; therefore the assessment process needs to be robust and comprehensive, with specialist opinion sought where and when appropriate. An assessment of parenting capacity is not about finding the ‘perfect’ parent, but about finding out what the child needs, whether their parent can meet these needs, and what is in the child’s best interests.
Child, Youth and Family’s Practice Centre website, which provides practice policies, guidance, resources, assessment tools and frameworks, is designed to support social workers in their everyday work. For more information about assessing parenting capacity, the Assessment
Framework Triangle and the family strengths and risk assessment tool, go to www.practicecentre.
cyf.govt.nz.
REFERENCES
Azar, S.T. & Cote, L.R. (2002). Sociocultural issues in the evaluation of the needs of children in custody decisionmaking: What do our current frameworks for evaluating parenting practices have to offer? International
Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 25, 193–217.
Azar, S.T., Lauretti, A.F. & Loding, B.V. (1998). The evaluation of parental fitness in termination of parental rights cases: A functional-contextual perspective. Clinical
Child and Family Psychology Review , 1(2), 77–100.
Bartha, C. & Gonclaves, L. (1996). Mental illness and parenting capacity: Assessing for risk and planning for children. In B. Abosh & A. Collins (Eds.) Mental Illness in the Family: Issues and Trends , 120–138. Toronto, CA:
University of Toronto Press.
Basarab-Horwath, J.A. (Ed.) (2001). The Child’s World:
Assessing children in need . London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Benjet, C., Azar, S.T. & Kuersten-Hogan, R. (2003).
Evaluating the parental fitness of psychiatrically diagnosed individuals: Advocating a functional-contextual analysis of parenting. Journal of Family Psychology , 17 (2), 238–251.
Budd, K.S. (2005). Assessing parenting capacity in a child welfare context. Children and Youth Services Review , 27,
429–444.
Budd, K.S. & Holdsworth, M.J. (1996). Issues in clinical assessment of minimal parenting competence. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology , 25, 2–14.
Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act (1989).
Wellington: New Zealand Government.
Choate, P.W. (2009). Parenting Capacity Assessments in
Child Protection Cases. Forensic Examiner.
Retrieved from
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011 http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/.
Commonwealth of Australia (2004). Parenting Information
Project. Volume 2: Literature Review . Canberra:
Commonwealth of Australia.
Conley, C. (2003). A review of Parenting Capacity
Assessment Reports. OACAS Journal , 47(3), 16–22.
Harnett, P.H. (2007). A procedure for assessing parents’ capacity for change in child protection cases. Children and
Youth Services Review , 29, 1179–1188.
Haynes, J.P. (2010). Parenting assessment in abuse, neglect and permanent wardship cases. In E.P. Benedek, P. Ash, &
C.L. Scott. Principles and Practice of Child and Adolescent
Forensic Mental Health , 157–170. Virginia, USA: American
Psychiatric Publishing Inc.
Holland, S. (2004). Child and Family Assessment in Social
Work Practice. London: Sage Publications.
Horwath, J. (2002). Maintaining a focus on the child? Child
Abuse Review. 11, 195–213.
Hurley, D.J., Chiodo, D., Leschied, A. & Whitehead, P.
(2003). Correlates of a Measure of Parenting Capacity with Parent and Child Characteristics in a Child Welfare
Sample. Canada: University of Western Ontario.
Hynan, D.J. (2003). Parent–child observations in custody evaluations. Family Court Review , 41, 214–223.
Mirfin-Veitch, B. (2003). Relationships and Adults with an
Intellectual Disability . Dunedin: Donald Beasley Institute.
Reder, P., Duncan, S. & Lucey, C. (2003) Studies in the
Assessment of Parenting . London: Routledge.
Risley-Curtiss, C., Stromwall, L.K., Hunt, D.T. & Teska, J.
(2004). Identifying and reducing barriers to reunification for seriously mentally ill parents involved in child welfare cases. Families in Society , 85(1), 107–119.
Saunders, B. & Goddard, C.R. (1998). A Critique of
Structured Risk Assessment Procedures: Instruments of
Abuse? Melbourne: Australians Against Child Abuse Ltd.
Sawyer, E. (2009). Building Resilience in Families Under
Stress: Supporting families affected by parental substance abuse and/or mental health problems . London: NCB.
Schutz, B.M., Dixon, E.B., Lindenberger, J.C. & Ruther, N.J.
(1989) Solomon’s sword: A practical guide to conducting child custody evaluations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Steinhauser, P.D. (1991). The Least Detrimental Alternative:
A systematic guide to case planning and decision making for children in care . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Westman, J.C. (1994). Licensing Parents: Can we prevent child abuse and neglect ? Massachusetts: Perseus
Publishing.
White, A. (2005). Assessment of Parenting Capacity:
Literature Review . NSW, Australia: Centre for Parenting &
Research, Department of Community Services.
Woodcock, J. (2003). The social work assessment of parenting: An exploration. British Journal of Social Work.
33, 87–106.

New Zealand is no different from many other countries in the levels of violent and abusive behaviour within households. Most practitioners working within the social services sector will be confronted regularly with the multifaceted dynamics that arise from complex and violent relationships between family members. In fact, the prevalence of violence within families is such that, whether through a professional or personal role, each of us will have been touched by the issue in some way.
“Intimate violence is a pervasive experience, colouring all aspects of family life for those directly or indirectly involved” (Denzin, 1984, cited in Goldblatt, 2003, p. 533).
It is within this context that social workers are often engaged to support those family members who are involved.
However, it is the role of the child protection worker to ensure the wellbeing of those children and young people who are living with violence in their family. Through that child maltreatment lens, this article explores effective responses to family violence when focused on the protection of children and young people.
Defining violence in families
It is easy to name a variety of terms referring to the violence that occurs in families, for instance:
‘domestic violence’, ‘inter-parental conflict’,
‘family violence’, ‘intimate partner violence’, and
‘abuse’. Essentially they all encapsulate the same thing – that someone in a close relationship is being harmed by the behaviour and actions of another. The nature and extent of that harm can take a range of guises, for example the control of friendships and finances, verbal aggression, physical violence or even a vindictive form of anxiety-provoking silence. The impact of these actions is highly individualised, the physical and psychological consequences of which can vary from intense and immediate to cumulative and long lasting.
In New Zealand, the legislative context for this issue is primarily provided by the Domestic
Violence Act 1995, which defines violence within family/whänau or ‘domestic relationships’. The
Act further specifies what ‘violence’ means (i.e. physical abuse, sexual abuse, and psychological abuse, including intimidation, harassment, damage to property and threats of abuse) and what might constitute psychological abuse against a child. In addition to the definition of the relationship involved, the Act is also explicit about the impact of violence in families on children and young people, specifically when a child is at risk of seeing or hearing violence in domestic relationships. The vulnerability of children is firmly reflected in the law. Later in this piece we will consider how that vulnerability can be addressed in the interface between support services and the children involved.
The dominant pattern within ‘family violence’ is men perpetrating violence against women.
This strongly resonates in the language that surrounds it. Masculine terms are applied to the perpetrators of abuse and feminine words are used in the discourse around victims. Despite this, it is important to recognise that other patterns exist in family environments, including those where children and young people live, for instance domestic violence within same-sex relationships, men abused by women, parents abused by a child and violence between siblings.
27

28
Points to reflect on:
In thinking about one of the families you know or have worked with where violence is an issue, consider:
• In what way was the violence perpetuated? Who was affected by it?
• How does the legal definition of violence in domestic relationships compare with your understanding of what violence in families looks like?
• How does your own experience of violence influence the way you think about and work with families in your professional role?
The prevalence of family violence in New
Zealand
“The most significant challenge in responding to children and young people affected by domestic violence lies in recognising that this is a widespread, chronic and serious social problem” (Humphreys & Houghton, 2008, p.7).
In 2008, 44 New Zealanders died due to a family violence related incident. In the same year,
88,545 family violence incidents were recorded by the police, equal to 200 a day, or one every seven minutes. Of those 88,545 reports, 74,000 children and young people were present when the police visited (New Zealand Police, cited in
Campaign for Action on Family Violence, 2011).
More startling is the estimate that only 18% of family violence incidents are reported to the police. Whilst some of the remaining 72% will be referred to other services working in the family violence sector, a significant number of children and young people will be living in households where violence is taking place and there is no access or interface with organisations to support them.
Between July 2009 and June 2010, Child, Youth and Family received 124,921 reports of concern, nearly half (46%) of which were reports made by the police because of a family violence related incident. These figures indicate the level of family violence that exists in our communities and the extent to which children and young people are involved. The figure also indicates a strong correlation between violence in families and concerns about child welfare and wellbeing. The nature and extent of this relationship from a research perspective is explored a little further in this piece.
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011
Key messages from research
Research on the area of family violence continues to grow, providing us with a valuable resource from which we can better understand the issue and utilise the key messages to shape policy and practice. The next section focuses on the impacts and consequences of family violence for children and young people and what social workers need to be cognisant of when working with them. In particular, the focus is on the key areas of:
• the impact of family violence on children
• cumulative harm
• what constitutes effective intervention for children and families.
Children and young people’s experience of violence in their families
Family violence and child maltreatment are directly linked. Research on this relationship began to emerge during the 1980s and 1990s when “a child’s exposure to domestic violence in the home [had] increasingly been framed as a child protection issue” (Connolly, 2007, p. 34).
The prevalence data indicates that, whether directly or indirectly, children and young people are fundamentally enmeshed in the conflict in their homes.
Research consistently confirms that children and young people are involved to a much greater extent than we realise. In England and Wales,
2002 statistics illustrated that 750,000 children were living with violence in their family (Walby
& Allen, 2004). Similarly, research involving
5000 young Australians showed that 25% of them said they had witnessed violence against a parent (Indermaur, 2001) and research in England

found that up to 86% of children were either in the same or adjoining room to where a family violence incident took place (Humphreys &
Stanley, 2006).
Children and young people experience two main consequences of living amidst the dynamics of violence in their families.
This can lead to anxiety, stress, depression, impaired brain development, illness in babies, disrupted attachment, erosion of the parent– child relationship, educational disruption, poor sleep and trauma (Humphreys, Houghton &
Ellis, 2008; Jaffe, Wolfe & Wilson, 1990). Further, studies have compared the degree of impact of witnessing family violence with the actual experience of abuse (Mertin & Mohr, 2002). This is discussed in more detail in the next section.
Secondly, studies suggest the likelihood of physical and sexual abuse occurring increases where there is family violence (Cawson, 2002;
Edleson 1999; Farmer & Pollack, 1998). Although care must be taken, this finding provides us with further understanding of the impact of violence within families for the children and young people involved.
Intervention often focuses on addressing the inter-parental conflict, securing safety by removing the perpetrator and engaging the victim in support. When focusing on issues of child protection, the effectiveness of interventions can at times become compromised when a parent continues in a relationship with the perpetrator, perhaps through fear or a desire to preserve the family environment despite its inherent trauma and conflict. Connolly and Harms (2009) suggest child protection involvement can focus on the separation of the adults without recognising the lack of ‘synergy’ this approach has with the needs of those involved. This perspective provides insight into those factors at play within the family dynamic that can perpetuate the cycles of violence.
Best practice in child protection in a situation where there is family violence works from a childcentred approach that looks beyond the issue of family violence and conflict to the impact of that violence upon the needs and safety of all the children involved – what does it mean for the child? Being mindful of the coexistence of violence in families and child abuse reminds us of the importance of looking beyond the inter-parental or adult conflict, even when the incident leading to notification appears to pose a low or moderate risk to the children.
Clarifying the child’s experience within the family violence dynamic is an important part of ensuring their needs are identified and appropriate interventions are put in place at an early stage. Assessment work with children, young people and their families has been discussed elsewhere in this journal, as have approaches to building safety such as those proposed by Turnell and Edwards (1999).
Building safety in this way places the child at the centre of the intervention by crystallising the impact and consequences of the violence for them whilst capturing a clear sense of what an improved, safer future looks like for them.
Involving children in their plans of support provides a vehicle through which they can be heard and their needs identified. Social workers need to heed children and young people’s reality and understand how they perceive their own safety and wellbeing within their circumstance, for; “children are neither ‘untouched’ by the violence, nor merely passive bystanders within the abusive family system” (Buckley, Whelan &
Holt, 2006, p. 14).
The cycles of abusive behaviour and intergenerational transmission can mean that adults who experienced abuse in childhood and are subsequently abused as adults are more likely to maltreat their own children (Dixon, Brown &
Hamilton, 2005). However, it should be noted that whilst there is an increased likelihood of a child experiencing maltreatment when their
29

30 parent or caregiver has also been abused, many adults who have experienced abuse do not go on to perpetrate abuse or violence against others
(Whipple & Webster-Stratton, 1991).
Research has considered these characteristics, and conditions of families where violence and abuse takes place, from an intergenerational perspective (Bentovim, 1992; Sheinberg &
True, 2008). Within their social context, family systems become traumatised when people with similar difficulties or experiences come together, perhaps in the belief that their shared experience will benefit the quality of their partnership. What transpires is the development of relationships that become organised by the trauma of the individuals within that family system, or “traumaorganised family systems” (Bentovim et al, 2009, p. 67). The trauma is transposed to the reality of the current system and the cycle perpetrated.
Impact of exposure to violence on child development and wellbeing
As discussed earlier, the prevalence of violence in families in New Zealand is significant. The proximity of the violence to a child will vary: a child’s ‘involvement’ could be witnessing, hearing or being victim of the abuse. Humphreys and
Stanley (2006) argue that children and young people are highly likely to know that violence is occurring in their families, despite the protective measures their parent(s) believe they are putting in place. The impact of that exposure can be far reaching for children in relation to their immediate safety and wellbeing. This includes their ongoing physical and psychological health, development, relationships, self-esteem and ability to attend and engage with schooling.
A range of factors can influence the nature and extent of that impact, such as age, the intensity and duration of the experience, the care previously provided or the availability of support networks (Bentovim et al, 2009, p. 31). So, whilst a number of children may live with family violence, some within the same sibling group, the way in which that experience impacts their world, their wellbeing and development will vary.
Holistic and comprehensive assessment work with children and young people is important in terms of capturing what that experience has meant for each child or young person involved.
For children living with violence, evidence indicates an increased likelihood of depression and anxiety (McClosky, Figueredo & Koss,
1995), experience of trauma-related symptoms
(Bermann & Levendosky, 1998) and behavioural and cognitive issues (O’Keefe, 1995). Studies have explored the impact of exposure to emotional and physical violence upon the development of a child’s brain. We know that stable, nurturing, loving, secure home environments, where children are respected and their needs met, provide the best circumstances for their growth and development. Conversely, living with violence creates a sense of constant anxiety and stress, meaning children exist within a state of hyper-vigilance and arousal, persistently prepared for flight, even where there is no actual or immediate threat (Glaser, 2000).
More specifically, stress responses influence cognitive functioning. This potentially inhibits some of the more sophisticated areas of brain activity associated with the registration of experience, in favour of those involved with anxiety and trauma (Bentovim et al, 2009).
Persistent experience of heightened awareness and arousal can mean children are highly sensitive to their environment and may struggle with processing information, for example being attentive to school work. Translating this learning to the world of the child, adapting to school life, coping with peer relationships, attending to and processing new information are likely to present great challenges to them. In comparing the brain images of children who have experienced maltreatment with those who have not, De Bellis et al (1999) found the former cohort showed less well developed connection between the left and right sides of the brain and smaller overall brain mass. The level of impairment to
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011

the brain’s development also correlated with the duration of the abuse.
“Exposure at any age can create disruptions that can interfere with the accomplishment of developmental tasks, and early exposure may create more severe disruptions by affecting the subsequent chain of developmental tasks”
(Rossman, 2001, p. 58).
Further, children exposed to violence can develop cognitive behaviours that focus on the non-verbal cues of others within their world, or as described by Perry (1996), ‘use-dependent’ learning. These children will be more focused upon the behaviours and environment around them, having learnt to pay attention to those signs that might indicate a risk or danger coming their way. Within the context of the family, this might include the facial expressions between
Mum and Dad, a dinner thrown across the room, or those subtle but powerful indicators that signal their vigilance is required (ibid).
Cumulative harm
Family violence literature is increasingly drawing our attention to cumulative harm or
“the existence of compounded experiences of multiple episodes of abuse or ‘layers’ of neglect”
(Miller, 2007, p. 1). When the occurrence of violence is ongoing, at any level of perceived severity, the impact for children and young people is accumulative – the consequences can build or ‘layer’, translating to profound harm.
Children who live with violence in their family often do not come to the notice of statutory child protection until the harm or threats have reached a significant level. When presenting issues appear to be of a low level, statutory child protection services are not involved. However, knowing the danger of cumulative harm means that early intervention is critical to mediating the risks of ongoing exposure to violence (Miller,
2007). An incident-focused approach can mean social workers fail to assimilate the relevance of previous episodes, patterns of behaviour and apparent escalation. Being attentive to the layering of repeated experiences of violence at home or the potential for cumulative harm is fundamentally undermined when events are seen as isolated or dismissed as ‘low level’.
Earlier in this piece, we discussed the coexistence of family violence with child abuse. Placing this coexistence within the context of our knowledge about cumulative harm provides helping agencies with the imperative to respond promptly and robustly to what might on the surface present as
‘low level’ violence.
Parenting capacity and the child–parent relationship
In addition to threats to emotional wellbeing and cumulative harm, a child’s psychological wellbeing can be at risk when the dynamics of family violence curtail a parent’s ability to meet their child’s needs. The nature and quality of the parent–child relationship is fundamental to a child’s development. Their sense of security and ability to explore their world from the base is dependent on a secure attachment to a caregiver significant to them. Family violence is often underpinned by an uneven balance of power and control where one adult seeks to dominate and control the existence of another. Within the context of family violence, a child’s safety and their development is affected by how the family violence interferes with the parent and child’s ability to form and sustain an attachment
(Levendosky, Huth-Bocks & Semel, 2002). Further, studies have shown that women subject to family violence experience high levels of anxiety and depression, potentially limiting their parenting capacity. Further, their focus can be diverted to meeting the needs of the man rather than the child (Mullender et al, 2002; Irwin, Waugh &
Wilkinson, 2002; Humphreys & Stanley, 2006).
31

32
Effective interventions – What works, what can social workers do?
In practice, we often see cases where families are referred to statutory child protection agencies due to incidents at home when arguments and violence have taken place. Responses can be incident- and adult-focused with an expectation that children will be protected by addressing the parental conflict. This approach has merits in engaging the adults to consider their behaviour, but it lacks a focus on the children, which risks overlooking their individual protection.
The dynamics of conflict, power and control in some families can drown out the voice and experience of children. Intensifying our efforts to ensure the strengths and needs of children are understood and responded to is a core objective of frontline practice. This is particularly pertinent when we consider cumulative harm, the coexistence of physical and sexual abuse with family violence, and the significant impact of living with violence on a child’s physical, developmental, social, educational and healthrelated needs.
Children suggest that being safe and talking with their mothers, siblings, wider family and friends are of significant importance to them
(Mullender et al, 2002; McGee, 2000). Children experiencing violence in the home may be mistrustful of professionals. Working to engage and build relationships is key to the effectiveness of subsequent work in assessing risks, needs, strengths and developing plans of support. An eco-map is a tool that can capture and explore the relationships a child has within their world and identify those people and places who offer positive support for them.
Opportunities to develop strengthened support will look subtly different for every child.
This active participation is central to how they cope with their experience of family violence.
Social workers need to sharpen their focus upon the child’s experience, what safety looks like for them, and how they see their support. Risk assessment and building safety continue to play a principal role in responding to children living with violence. Social work intervention seeks to establish safety and enduring wellbeing through assessing needs and developing plans of support that provide children and young people with more robust effective responses.
Part of this approach is concerned with taking account of the child or young person’s strengths and resilience. The individual circumstances, living environment, and broader familial, social and cultural context are factors that can determine impact. Coupled with these external factors, a child or young person’s own internal resources and strengths assist in bolstering their resilience to adversity and trauma. Through comprehensive assessment work, the child’s strengths can be identified and capitalised on when working out the most effective plan of support for them.
Translating the learning to social work practice
Violence within families is harmful. It causes distress and has far reaching consequences for those who live amongst it. Family violence threatens children and young people’s safety.
It affects their psychological and physical development and wellbeing and impacts upon educational achievement, self-image and confidence. Family violence has the power to threaten a child’s likelihood of a safe and secure childhood and a functioning adulthood.
For child protection social work this means first securing immediate safety and sticking with the children and young people to better understand what is happening in their life. Recurrent exposure to violence poses a range of serious threats to a child or young person’s wellbeing and development. In practice, repeated episodes of seemingly low level violence can fall into a
‘no response’, ‘further incident’ followed by
‘no response’ pattern. To address the risks of
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011

Points to reflect on:
When working with children in families where violence occurs you need to be mindful of the importance of looking and assessing beyond safety and understanding the needs of the child across their world of health, wellbeing and development. Consider:
• In your role, how can the needs of the child be fully explored as part of securing their safety and their enduring wellbeing?
• How can the child be supported to safely tell their story about the impact and consequence of family violence on their day-to-day life?
• Reflecting on how living with violence can affect a child or young person, what can you do differently in the future? cumulative harm, early intervention assists in our understanding of what is happening for the child and this is critical to mediating against the adverse effects on their psychological wellbeing and development. Identifying strengths and those relationships where the child or young person is valued and where there is a sense of trust is particularly important in building safety and working towards enduring wellbeing. This can mean people within the wider whänau, community members, peers or friends.
Opportunities to address the risks of cumulative harm are presented when families are repeatedly referred to organisations due to violent incidents.
Differentiating the response to these repeat referrals and intensifying efforts to engage with the children and their families is important for developing robust plans to protect and foster the conditions where enduring wellbeing can be achieved. Working in collaboration with a range of partners in the field of family violence is critical. Advocating for, and facilitating, a childfocus within a multi-agency context will assist the development of plans where the child is a core consideration within the adult conflict.
Conclusion
We know violence in families has the potential to seriously harm a child or young person and affect the course of their lives. Whether that harm is high risk and immediate or accumulates over time, the consequences on their wellbeing and capacity to function as an adult are likely to be far-reaching. Intervening effectively in such a complex, private dynamic is a challenge many social workers and other professionals face on a daily basis. This article has explored what research identifies as the most critical consideration for practice and how we shape social work intervention to assist children, young people and their families to find the right pathways of support to improve their life outcomes.
Family violence can touch us in many different ways, either through a personal or professional experience. If you have concerns about your own safety or want to know more about how to get support, talk to someone you trust and know. There are people who can help. At Child,
Youth and Family this could be your manager or the Employee Assistance Programme. The
Government’s family violence website also has helpful links: www.areyouok.org.nz
REFERENCES
Bentovim, A., Cox, A., Bingley Miller, L. & Pizzey S. I.
(2009). Safeguarding Children Living with Trauma and
Family Violence. Evidence-Based Assessment, Analysis and
Planning Interventions . Jessica Kingsley: London.
Bentovim, A. (1992). Trauma Organised Systems: Physical and sexual abuse in families . London: Karnac Books.
Bermann, G. and Levendosky, A.A (1998). The moderating effects of parenting distress on children’s adjustment in women-abusing families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence ,
13(3), 383–397.
Buckley, H., Whelean, S. & Holt, S. (2006). Listen to Me!
Children’s Experience of Domestic Violence. Child Abuse
Review , 16(2006), 296–310.
Campaign for Action on Family Violence (2011). Are You
OK?
www.areyouok.org.nz/files/news/Updated_Stats_Final.
pdf [Retrieved 6 February 2011].
Cawson, P. (2002). Child Maltreatment in the Family: The experience of a national sample of young people . London:
NSPCC.
33

34
Connolly, M. & Harms, L. (2009). Social Work: Contexts and practice . Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Connolly, M. (2007). Professional responses: Who does what in domestic violence and child protection?
Communities, Children and Families Australia , 4(1), 34–37.
De Bellis, M.D., Keshavan, M., Clark, D.B. & Casey, B.J.
(1999). A. E. Bennett Research Award. Developmental
Traumatology: Part II: Brain Development. Biological
Psychiatry , 45(10), 1271–1284.
Dixon, L., Brown, K. and Hamilton, C. (2005). Risk factors of parents abused as children: A meditational study of the intergenerational continuity of child maltreatment
(part 1). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 46(1),
47–57.
Edleson, J. (1999). Children witnessing of adult domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 14(4), 839–870.
Farmer, E. & Pollack, S. (1998). Substitute Care for Sexually
Abused and Abusing Children.
Chichester: Wiley.
Glaser, D. (2000). Child abuse and neglect and the brain: a review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 41(8),
1076.
Goldblatt, H. (2003). Strategies of Coping Among
Adolescents Experiencing Interpersonal Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence ,18(2), 532–552.
Humphreys, C. and Houghton, C. (2008). The research evidence on children and young people experiencing domestic abuse. In C. Humphreys, C. Houghton & J. Ellis.
Literature review: Better Outcomes for Children and Young people Experiencing Domestic Abuse – Directions for Good
Practice.
Scotland: RR Donnelley.
Humphreys, C. & Stanley, N. (2006). (Eds.) Domestic
Violence and Child Protection: Direction for Good Practice.
London: Jessica Kingsley Publications.
Humphreys, C, Houghton, C. & Ellis, J. (2008). Literature review: Better Outcomes for Children and Young People
Experiencing Domestic Abuse – Directions for Good
Practice . Scotland: RR Donnelley.
Indermaur, D. (2001). Young Australians and domestic violence, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice ,
No 195, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Irwin, J., Waugh, F. & Wilkinson, M. (2002). Domestic
Violence and Child Protection Report.
Sydney: School of
Social Work and Policy Studies. California: Sage.
Jaffe, P., Wolfe, D.A., & Wilson, S. (1990). Children of
Battered Women . Newbury Park, California: Sage.
Levendosky, A.A., Huth-Bocks, A. & Semel, M.A. (2002).
Adolescent Peer Relationships and Mental Health
Functioning in Families with Domestic Violence. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology , 31(2), 206–218.
McClosky, L., Figueredo, A. & Koss, P. (1995). The Effects of Systemic Family Violence on Children’s Mental Health.
Childhood Development , 66(1995), 1239–1261 .
McGee, C. (2000). Childhood Experiences of Domestic
Violence.
London: Jessica Kingsley.
Mertin, P. & Mohr, P. (2002). Incidents and correlates of post-trauma symptoms in children from backgrounds of domestic violence. Violence and Victims , 17(2002), 5.
Miller, R. (2007). Cumulative Harm: A conceptual overview .
Melbourne: Victorian Government Department of Human
Sciences.
Mullender, A, Hague, G., Iman, U., Kelly, L., Malos, E.,
& Regan, L. (2002). Children’s Perspectives on Domestic
Violence . London: Sage.
O’Keefe, M (1995). Predictors of child abuse in martially violent families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence ,
10(1995), 3–25.
Perry, B. (1996). Neurodevelopmental Adaptations to
Violence: How children survive the intragenerational vortex of violence on young children . Cleveland: Gund
Foundation.
Rossman, B.B.R. (2001). Longer term effects of children’s exposure to domestic violence. In S. Graham-Bermann
(Ed.) Domestic Violence in the Lives of Children , 35–65.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sheinberg, M. & True, F. (2008). Treating family relational trauma: A recursive process using a decision dialogue.
Family Process , 47(2), 173–195.
Turnell, A. & Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of Safety: A Solution and Safety Oriented Approach to Child Protection
Casework . New York: Norton.
Walby, S & Allen, J (2004). Domestic Violence, Sexual
Assault and Stalking: Findings from the British Crime
Survey , Research Study 276, London: Home Office.
Whipple, E. & Webster-Stratton, C. (1991). The role of parental stress in physically abusive families. Child Abuse
& Neglect , 15(2004), 279–291.
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011

Working in child protection can feel like walking a tightrope, balanced between leaving a child in a dangerous situation on the one side and intervention that might do more harm than good on the other (Munro, 2007). Situations that require intervention from a child protection agency are usually complex; it can be hard to determine what has happened in the past, much less what might happen in the future.
As highlighted in previous articles in this edition of Social Work Now , assessment is the foundation of any intervention. We need to understand a situation in enough detail to be able to identify both risk and protective factors (Rutter, 1999). As
Turnell and Edwards (1997, p. 181) explain:
“Risk assessment can only ever be half the equation. The other half must be the discovery and development of safety for the child in the present and the future.”
Ability to care for children may be compromised by issues of family violence, substance abuse and a low level of parenting knowledge and skills, making intervention necessary to ensure children’s safety. Whether children are placed in care or remain with their family, ensuring ongoing safety requires a significant investment of time and energy from all involved with the child, including the family and the wider network, as well as helping professionals.
Given the essential role of the client–worker relationship in facilitating positive change
(Munro, 2010) the onus is on child protection practitioners to make the most of every opportunity to develop this relationship. This article explores the ways in which social work practitioners can work alongside children and families to create safety plans that will pave the way to a brighter future.
A basis for building safety
At times statutory child protection agencies have been accused of narrowly focusing on presenting concerns and taking a ‘child rescue’ approach
(Chapman & Field, 2007; Scott & O’Neil, 1996). In shifting from an atomistic or narrowly focused approach to child protection to a more holistic approach, Munro (2010) suggests we need to better understand the broader context within which a child sits and thus be in a better position to explore solutions that respond to their unique situation.
Looking at a systemic response to issues of safety for children means contextualising what
‘safety’ means, and conversely what threatens that safety. As well as freedom from physical harm, safety for children requires that they are provided with care that meets their physical and emotional health and wellbeing and receive ageappropriate support for their development. This broad definition of safety implies that anything less is cause for concern.
Saleebey (1996, p. 303) explains that strengthsbased practice “honors two things: the power of the self to heal and right itself with the help of the environment, and the need for an alliance with the hope that life might really be otherwise”.
Strengths-based work is manifested in the
‘solution building’ approach (Berg & Kelly, 2000) to child protection work. Berg and Kelly suggest
35

36 that social work practitioners, like all helping professionals, have been trained in the traditional problem-solving approach based on the medical model. They argue that this locks practitioners into being ‘the expert’, with a heavy emphasis on professional assessment and intervention. This dependence on assessing problems and analysing causes has the potential to keep practitioners and families stuck in an unhelpful deficit cycle.
Strengths-based practitioners argue that clients are the ‘experts’ in their own lives and therefore focus on clients’ perceptions of opportunities for change.
The ‘signs of safety’ approach (Turnell &
Edwards, 1999) reframes strengths as qualities that can be used by families or practitioners to increase the safety of children. The level of risk of harm to a child is juxtaposed with the strengths and protective factors in the family.
However, the safety of the child remains the key focus – what Turnell now refers to as ‘safety organised practice’. (See www.signsofsafety.net/ westernaustralia for an example of how another jurisdiction has adopted this approach.)
The practice framework that underpins the child protection work of Child, Youth and Family reflects a strengths-based perspective and a solution building focus (Chapman & Field, 2007), as Connolly (2005, p. 10) explains:
“Good outcomes are achieved in a practice context of role clarity, the reinforcement of pro-social values, collaborative problem solving, good relationship work and a supportive helping alliance. Essentially this reflects a strengths approach to practice, and the knowledge that people do ‘rebound’ from serious trouble and grow and develop through dialogue and collaboration.”
The practice framework incorporates strengths- and evidence-based practice; family-led and culturally responsive approaches; and childcentred perspectives. These core aspects of care and protection social work are interwoven throughout the process of engagement and assessment, seeking solutions and securing safety and belonging (Connolly, 2007).
Within this context we at Child, Youth and
Family have begun to strengthen our response to building safety. In doing this we have borrowed heavily from the Signs of Safety work pioneered in Australia by Andrew Turnell, Steve Edwards,
Susie Essex and Sonja Parker (Turnell & Edwards,
1997, 1999; Turnell & Essex, 2006; Parker, 2010a,
2010b).
Understanding safety
The Safety Assessment Tool Guidelines, available on the Child, Youth and Family Practice Centre, 3 reflect the importance of exploring a child’s situation, including possibilities for mitigating and eliminating risk:
“We must take into account the risks, strengths and vulnerabilities of each situation and consider the specific needs of vulnerable infants and potential cumulative harm where this is not the first notification.”
In planning for safety, we need to understand what safety might look like for the particular child with whom we are working and think about steps that can be taken to get to the point where the child is safe. Turnell and Edwards (1999, p. 38) explain:
“The heart of the signs of safety approach is a focus on goals, namely, what the statutory agency needs to see to close the case as well as the family’s ideas and ways of creating safety.
This is exactly what we mean by focusing on safety, not as an avoidance of the issue of danger and harm, but as a mechanism for finding a way forward that will resolve the problems.”
There is no blueprint for safety. Because each child and family is unique there is no standard
‘mechanism for finding a way forward’. Even in families where there is denied abuse, there is still value in building safety plans and a reluctant parent can often be convinced to participate
3 www.practicecentre.cyf.govt.nz.
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011

in order to protect themselves from future allegations of abuse (Turnell & Essex, 2006). It is especially important to remember that cultural norms and values have a bearing on a child’s safety and what that might look like. This adds to the importance of involving children and the families in planning for safety so that plans are meaningful and relevant to them. It is equally important to plainly state statutory requirements so families know what they need to work towards.
The bottom line
From a child protection perspective, the bottom line is that children are free from abuse. To give children the power to take charge of their situation if they ever feel threatened, they need to know that they have people to go to who will willingly listen to their concerns or fears. To allay risk in potentially risky situations, an agreed plan which specifies what assistance is required and who will provide it is essential to keep children safe and ensure they know support is readily available.
Social workers tend to be well versed at gauging immediate risk (Stanley, 2002). In Child, Youth and Family this process includes a safety assessment, which marks the beginning of the journey to developing a useful and effective safety plan. However, assessment, evaluation and planning are a continual process requiring ongoing adjustment of plans and should be at the forefront of the social worker’s mind, at points of transition as well as at the beginning of engagement with a family. Early intervention and a well constructed plan will show whether milestones in the process of change are being reached and allow time to adjust the plan if any problems arise.
The safety planning journey
The term ‘safety planning’ has different meanings depending on when it takes place and the degree of depth that is undertaken in setting a plan up.
The notion of safety planning is perhaps better known within the context of family violence.
Waugh and Bonner (2002, p. 293) highlight the complexity of safety planning within the field of family violence, and suggest “practitioners are required to take into account the overall needs of women and children, and are reliant on the interagency understanding of the issues and collaboration”. They describe safety planning as
“a pragmatic approach to working with women that acknowledges and builds on women’s own perceptions and responses to their partner’s power and control” (p. 293).
Safety planning should be used in any situation where a child may be at risk in any way.
Essential when working with a family to keep their children safe within the family, a safety plan is just as important for ensuring that children are safe during access visits with family members they do not live with. Securing safety is particularly important for those children and young people who are more vulnerable, for instance children under the age of five (Connolly,
Wells & Field, 2007) and young people at risk of suicide.
A safety plan is critical to ensure that the transition home is well managed and that families have the support they need to help children settle back home.
Whatever the context in which it is undertaken, creating a good safety plan is a complex process requiring careful thought and reflection. Safety planning should begin promptly. When children are at risk it is recognised that the earlier we can intervene the better (Munro, 2011). This is true both in terms of early in a child’s life and early in the course of situation that may escalate into one that poses serious risk.
A safety plan is not a product, but rather a journey requiring a focus on relationships (Turnell
& Essex, 2006). Waugh and Bonner (2002, p. 283) highlight two key aspects of safety planning:
37

38 first, that it is a practical, down to earth process and second, that it recognises that when people have problems their own knowledge of their situation is fundamental to finding solutions.
Getting safety plans right
Setting and refreshing a safety plan is just a part of the journey to building safety. There are two avenues for using a safety plan. The first is when alarm bells start ringing in the course of assessing or investigating a report of concern. When there are immediate safety issues an interim safety plan is put in place to provide a temporary solution until the situation can be explored in sufficient depth for a more comprehensive, long-term plan to be drawn up. Social work practitioners tend to be well versed at this (Stanley, 2002). In
Child, Youth and Family, this process takes place alongside a safety assessment.
The second scenario addresses the ongoing safety and wellbeing of a child or young person. This second type of safety plan involves comprehensive planning and the participation of all involved in the situation, including family and whänau members, professionals and children and young people themselves.
Ideally, both types of plan need to be childcentred journeys that outline specific and measurable goals that have been agreed by all involved as essential to the process of establishing a particular child’s future safety.
In developing the plan, the child’s needs must constantly be the focus of attention. Goals should be built on the family’s own ideas, have bottom lines (safety goals) and incorporate opportunities for observable change. Establishing rapport and creating strong alliances makes space for this kind of change to occur (Munford
& Sanders, 1998).
From the practitioner’s point of view, careful safety planning underpins confidence that action taken and supports put in place will protect children and promote their wellbeing. Key considerations when making safety plans are addressed below.
Putting the child firmly at the centre
Children, as well as their families, often feel left out during statutory interventions (McNeish,
Newman & Roberts, 2002). When drafting safety plans for children, they need to understand that a plan is being drawn up to keep them safe and that they have an important voice in the process, both at the planning stage and in the monitoring of the plan as time goes on. They need to know that they will be able to talk to the person monitoring the plan so that this person can assess whether the plan is actually working for the child at its centre. The following table provides an example of tools that can be used to garner children’s views.
Addressing key issues
As other articles in this issue of Social Work Now confirm, thorough assessment is central to child protection practice.
This makes it essential to be able to rely on information produced by assessment of present and future risk.
In the UK, Broadhurst et al (2010) highlight common pitfalls in the assessment process, including that workers formulate a hypothesis too early and do not seek to refute or disconfirm it. Workers also tend to focus too heavily on the presenting or pressing factor and lose clarity on case responsibility within multiagency work. Case history and details are insufficiently explored and not enough focus is paid to information garnered from family and social networks. Insufficient attention is paid to what children say and do, and siblings tend to be overlooked. Broadhurst et al also note that insufficient support is given to social work practitioners who work with resistant and confrontational clients. All of these pitfalls hinder effective planning and intervention.
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011

Child, Youth and Family uses a number of engagement tools in working with children, including:
• Three Houses (Weld & Greening, 2004) – this is a simple engagement tool that has been used in a myriad of ways, but it was intended to be used with children as a way to elicit conversation and gain the child’s perspective on their worries, strengths and hopes and dreams (see www.practicecentre.cyf.
govt.nz).
• Words and Pictures (Turnell & Essex, 2006) – this is an age-appropriate process used to help children and their families explain what has happened to them, who’s worried, what are they worried about, what has happened over time and what is being done about it.
• Safety House (Parker, 2010b) – Parker developed this tool to help ensure children were active participants in building their own safety plans and to provide a visual representation of the plan that is easily understandable to everyone involved. The safety house provides the context to discuss with a child what safety means to them, who is involved in their lives and who is safe and who is not. It also provides an opportunity for explaining how the child can feel safe and under what circumstances. The simple visual representation of a house includes: the interior of the house, representing a safe place and safe people in the home; the outer circle of the house or garden, representing the safety network or the people who visit the house to ensure safety; the roof of the house, representing the rules of the safety house or plan; the path to the house, representing an opportunity to scale the level of safety for the child; and finally a separate area indicated by a red circle representing unsafe people.
A safety plan should directly address concerns for a child’s safety utilising the potential impact on the child as the starting point for setting goals. As child protection workers, we need to articulate in a straightforward and concise way what we are worried about and what our expectations are. Equally we need to listen to what the child’s worries and concerns are and what the parent or caregiver is worried about and what they believe needs to happen to ensure safety. Trotter (2002) suggests that using a client’s own definitions of the problem or danger is an effective strategy in moving forward.
Trusting family decision-making and building a strong network
Family members often constitute the most important safety net surrounding a child. As such it is invaluable to involve as many as possible in creating and implementing strategies for keeping children safe.
Turnell and Edwards (1997, p. 187) advise that
“suggestions the family generates will often be far easier to implement”. Exploring with families what has worked previously and under what circumstances can point the way to what can work again and can help with goal setting. Using the resolutions approach, Turnell and Essex (2006) provide detailed descriptions of taking a journey with families to write plans that are owned by them.
Families are differently constituted, ranging from single parents to extended networks. Families will have different notions of who counts as part of their family and it is important to understand each family’s view about this. Whatever a family’s view of who is in their family, attempts should be made to engage fathers in safety planning. While some child protection systems have historically focused their efforts on mothers, omitting to engage fathers – even those minimally involved in the child’s life – misses an opportunity to bring in potentially valuable contributions and resources that fathers and their wider families may provide to enrich a child’s wellbeing and keep them safe.
39

40
Building and sustaining a network is strengthened by the use of key concepts, including:
• Five eyes on the child (www.practice centre.cyf.govt.nz) – this is not really a tool, but rather an approach that ensures that several people are watching and advocating for the safety of the children.
• Family safety circles (Parker, 2010a) – Parker designed this tool to help families identify the people in a child’s safety network. It consists of a series of three concentric circles, with the name and photo of the child at the centre. The first circle represents the group of people who know what has happened, the middle circle includes those people who know a little bit about what has occurred and the outer circle includes the names of people who know nothing about the circumstances for the child. This provides a useful starting point for discussing who should be involved in keeping the child safe and who needs to know more about the issues.
A good plan can act as a coalescing point for working with everyone, including other agencies, involved with a family. Working through a plan helps everyone articulate what their concerns are and determine how they will be addressed, by whom and by when.
Making the plan clear and measurable
In practical terms, effective plans are tangible plans that are written, distributed to all involved, and reviewed regularly. The interval between reviews will vary with the situation. For example, an interim plan may need to be reviewed after a couple of days, whereas a long-term plan could be reviewed every four to six weeks.
A safety plan must be explicit. A good safety plan is in the form of a SMART plan – specific, measurable, achievable, reviewable and timeframed. A list of services is not a safety plan.
Creating a robust safety plan involves describing the pragmatic details of how it will work.
Turnell and Essex (2006) discuss the importance of making the plan relevant in the everyday lived experience of children – in the car, at school, in the home, and at the park. They also recommend articulating the trigger points that lead to escalation of violence or abuse, and planning for actions to mitigate the triggers or the resulting escalation. Trigger points will be different for each family and may even seem innocuous, for instance, stress related to a visit from a particular relative or receiving an unexpected bill. Plans should spell out actions that children, parents and family and network members have agreed to take to demonstrate that the child is kept safe from the risks that have been identified. Ensuring that this is happening according to the plan and holding everyone involved to account are important aspects of the process. It is essential to allocate people to the job of reviewing and safeguarding the plan. Deciding how those involved in the plan will be kept informed is also crucial.
An important aspect of strengths-based practice is noticing positive change (Turnell and Edwards,
1999). Similarly, Trotter (2002) suggests that focusing on the positives is a key element in successful cases. While reviewing a plan and making sure it is working to achieve goals is important for making the plan sustainable, regular review also provides an opportunity to mark and celebrate positive change.
It is crucial that a safety plan is meaningful to a child and their family. This is another reason for involving families and the wider network in reviewing and revising safety plans (Turnell &
Essex, 2006). Munro (2011) emphasises that we need to find ways to empower families and avoid creating dependencies. Handing responsibility for the ongoing reviewing of a plan to the family helps to create momentum towards change and to sustain that change.
In summary, a good plan has the following characteristics:
• gets in early
• articulates what the concerns are and how they will be addressed
• written in clear language
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011

• developed and implemented over time
• puts the child or young person at the centre of the planning process
• involves family decision-making and is endorsed by child, youth and family
• includes the viewpoints of all the involved parties
• addresses key issues for families and puts the right supports in place
• measures change
• ensures the views of children and their families are clearly articulated and that they know how to keep themselves safe.
Building sustainable safety
Building safety through the use of a safety plan requires that child protection workers invest the necessary time and energy in developing a plan and have the necessary skills to engage with families and build and maintain trusting relationships. Munro (2011, p. 3) prefaces the second report of her review of child protection with a parent’s comment:
“It’s all about relationships. We are talking about dealing with people with problems, with painful stuff. You have to know someone, trust them. They must be reliable and be there for you if you are going to be able to talk about the things you don’t want to; the things that scare you.”
As this parent indicates, parents are more likely to talk openly about the ‘painful stuff’ if they have confidence in a practitioner. Working with families is not a one-way relationship; as
Ferguson (2001, p. 4) notes, families ‘influence and co-construct’ the social work-client relationship. Ferguson (2009) encourages meaningful home visits in order to deepen practice and promote the helping relationship.
It is important to be clear that relationships between child protection workers and families are constructed for a purpose, which is to keep children safe. Trotter (2002) suggests that in practice ...
For Dawson and Berry (2002) successful engagement with clients is based on clear and concrete behaviour between social worker and client. This includes setting mutually agreed goals, providing relevant services and spending time with clients. Hearing and understanding the perspectives of different people involved in a family’s situation makes it possible to view the situation comprehensively, address key issues and put the right supports in place. To do this well it is essential that everyone involved understands the importance of talking openly about issues and concerns. It is therefore important to ensure that the right set of conditions is in place to make them feel comfortable enough to do so. When a helping professional engages in relationshipbased and reflective practice it helps both the client and the worker in achieving a way forward
(Ruch, 2005).
According to Turnell and Edwards (1999), a child protection worker’s skill in asking questions, being forthright and straightforward, noticing and acknowledging positive aspects of a family’s behaviour and generally getting onto the family’s wavelength is the foundation for beneficial change.
A major research project involving a collection of studies undertaken in the UK under the banner ‘Supporting Parents’ similarly emphasises the importance of relationships, finding that
‘if relationships are right from the start, then parents feel better about the help they are getting and are more likely to stay engaged with the service’ (Quinton, 2004, p. 192).
Building a sustained relationship with a family can in itself pose a risk: engagement with a family is desirable and laudable but great care must be taken to ensure that relationship does not morph into enmeshment, where the worker becomes so closely involved with a family’s wishes and
41

42 preferences that objectivity is lost and potential harm to a child is overlooked or ignored. In this instance advocacy on behalf of the family may turn out to be detrimental to the child.
To make sure that child protection workers who are good at forming relationships with families maintain boundaries, it is important to regularly revisit the safety plan and discuss progress with other professionals involved. Professional supervision is vital for ensuring that child protection workers remain grounded in reality and that any tendency to become enmeshed is challenged at an early stage.
Conclusion
Child protection is a difficult and complex area to work in. Good interventions require good planning; of late there has been a push for improved safety planning in statutory social work (Turnell & Essex, 2006).
This article has looked at designing effective safety plans alongside of the children and young people we work with and their families.
Safety planning requires that social work practitioners first and foremost ensure that the protective factors around a child are reinforced to the point where any remaining risk is outweighed. At its best, it can promote significant and lasting change. Ferguson (2001, p. 10) suggests that “the language of practice needs to go beyond the limits of ‘protection’ and ‘support’ to adequately account for the therapeutic processes of self redefinition and healing”.
REFERENCES
Berg, I.K., & Kelly, S. (2000). Building Solutions in Child
Protective Services . New York: Norton.
Broadhurst, K., White, S., Fish, S., Munro, E., Fletcher, K.
& Lincoln, H. (2010). Ten Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them:
What Research Tells Us. London: NSPCC.
Chapman, M., & Field, J. (2007). Strengthening our engagement with families and increasing practice depth.
Social Work Now , 38 (December), 21–28.
Connolly, M. (2005).
The New Zealand practice framework:
Using knowledge to inform practice in care and protection. Social Work Now, 32 (December), 12–20.
Connolly, M. (2007). Practice frameworks: conceptual maps to guide interventions in child welfare. British
Journal of Social Work , 37 (5), 825–837.
Connolly, M., Wells, P. & Field, J. (2007). Working with vulnerable infants. Social Work Now , 38 (December), 5–10.
Dawson, K. & Berry, M. (2002). Engaging families in child welfare services: An evidence-based approach to best practice. Child Welfare , 81(2), 293–317.
Ferguson, H. (2001). Promoting child protection, welfare and healing: The case for developing best practice. Child and Family Social Work, 6 (2001), 1–12.
Ferguson, H. (2009). Performing child protection: home visiting, movement and the struggle to reach the abused child. Child & Family Social Work , 14 (4), 471–480.
McNeish, D., Newman, T. & Roberts, H. (2002). What
Works for Children? Effective Services for Children and
Families. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Munford, R. & Sanders, J. (1998). Working effectively with families: strengths-based work – the key to sustainable family well-being (unpublished). Wellington: Massey
University & Barnardos Child and Family Research Centre.
Munro, E. (2007). Child protection.
London: Sage
Publications.
Munro, E. (2010). The Munro Review of Child Protection:
Part One: A Systems Approach. Cheshire: Department for
Education.
Munro, E. (2011).
The Munro Review of Child Protection:
Interim Report: the child’s Journey. Cheshire: Department for Education.
Quinton, D. (2004) Supporting Parents: Messages from research.
London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Parker, S. (2010a). Family Safety Circles . (Workbook)
Burswood: Aspirations Consultancy.
Parker, S. (2010b). The Safety House . (Workbook)
Burswood: Aspirations Consultancy.
Ruch, G. (2005). Relationship-based practice and reflective practice: holistic approaches to contemporary child care social work. Child and Family Social Work , 10 (2005),
111–123.
Rutter, M. (1999). Resilience concepts and findings:
Implications for family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy ,
21, 119–144.
Saleebey, D. (1996). The strengths perspective in social work practice: Extensions and cautions. Social Work, 41
(3), 296–305.
Scott, D., & O’Neil, D. (1996). Beyond Child Rescue:
Developing family-centred practice at St Lukes.
Sydney:
Allen and Unwin.
Stanley, T. (2002). Reflecting on decision-making – practice gains. Social Work Now , 22, 14–19.
Trotter, C. (2002). Worker skill and client outcome in child protection. Child Abuse Review, 11(2002), 38–50.
Turnell, A & Edwards, S. (1997). Aspiring to partnership:
The signs of safety approach to child protection. Child
Abuse Review , 6, 179–190.
Turnell, A. & Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of Safety: A safety
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011

and solution oriented approach to child protection casework.
New York: Norton.
Turnell, A. & Essex, S. (2006). Working with Situations of ‘Denied’ Child Abuse: The resolutions approach.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Waugh, F. & Bonner, M. (2002). Domestic violence and
Child protection: Issues in Safety Planning. Child Abuse
Review, 11 (August) 282–295.
Weld, N. & Greening, M. (2004). The Three Houses. Social
Work Now, 29 (December) 34–37.
43

44
In the chaos of the everyday world of the statutory social worker we may not often take the time to reflect and realise the privileged position we are in. The aim of this practice piece is to spark contemplation on the nature of the work we do with children and families.
Perennial questions underlie statutory child protection. How can we, as social workers, know when it is safe for a child or young person to remain in the care of their parents? How can we safely decide it is the right time for a child to return to the care of their parents? These questions are at the very core of the work we do.
Every contact we have with a parent or caregiver should help us answer these questions.
Based on experience gained from recent reviews of practice, this article highlights the importance of thoroughly preparing for intervention visits and of valuing the usefulness of interactions during these visits in helping us to decide the best course of action for a child.
In order to provide ourselves with reassurance and to have a true insight into whether an environment is safe and secure for a child or young person, we must understand three important aspects of working in intervention: maintaining relationships, knowing our purpose and proposed outcome, and working with others.
These are not new concepts and are not just confined to intervention, but they pave the way to achieving the best outcomes for children and young people.
Maintaining relationships and knowing your purpose
Analysis of recent case reviews has highlighted areas where we would like to further strengthen our practice. Better clarity about what we should focus on when visiting families and what we are looking for could help to facilitate better planning for visits. If we are not clear about the purpose of a visit then we can neither be clear when to conclude the visit nor whether we have achieved our purpose.
For example, on a recent visit with a young mother a social worker spent the time talking with her about how she liked school and what she thought she did well at school. The social worker followed up by asking her to think back to her childhood and recall what she had dreamed of being when she grew up. The young woman replied that she had wanted to work in a pharmacy. The rest of the visit was spent discussing how she could achieve her goal. At the end of the visit the worker described how positive the young woman was and how her confidence seemed to grow even within that short space of time. The worker described how good she felt talking and planning for something rather than focusing on the negative aspects of the young woman’s situation. Lending a holistic lens to the work we do with people often helps us make better progress.
Our assessment needs to ensure that the interventions in place do not just focus on
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011

parenting, but also draw attention to personal achievements that can enhance parental wellbeing and ultimately increase child safety .
Whatever our level of intervention, as statutory child protection workers we retain primary responsibility for the outcome for the child or young person. Understanding what this means to us and what it means for the family right from the beginning helps us to effect and notice change. This helps us to understand why we monitor and review a family and helps to keep our focus on the progress of children and their families.
The key factor here is being prepared. The reviews have demonstrated that we could better clarify what we mean when we say ‘to monitor’ or ‘to support’ when writing plans. We often see evidence that we have received reports from external agencies and visited the families, but this is only the first step in good monitoring.
When setting up plans, it is essential to involve the families and set an agreed purpose.
The parents and extended family members need to be able to understand why we are remaining involved and why we are visiting them. Essentially, this is about exploring what else needs to happen for the statutory child protection agency to hand over to community and whänau supports.
Planning the monitoring visits is just as essential as planning the assessment or investigation visits. Putting structure around them assists the building of trust – both parties know what the purpose is and what the intended goal or outcome of the visit is. This may include discussing with the family how to enhance a safe environment for a child, for instance, one who may not be allowed in the home.
Both social worker and parent should be able to explain what will be achieved with each visit. Social workers will then know what they are looking for when they see the children and parents together and in observing parenting practices, and parents will know what support they need to ask for to create a safe environment for their children. Scaling (see Saleebey, 1996;
Turnell & Edwards, 1999) is a way to track and measure change that may have occurred and a starting point for understanding what is behind the change on the scale.
For example, one worker described her initial anxiety about using scaling with a client as she did not think it would achieve anything.
She went on to describe how the father really thought about his answer and how surprised he was that he and the social worker both suggested the same number on the scale. They actually laughed about this as it was the first time they had agreed on anything. This allowed them to put a plan in place for the next four weeks that would hopefully see the number on the scale go up. A technique like scaling can solidify impressions of progress, helping to answer the question “how are we ensuring that everyone is clear about what the family/whänau (and the worker) needs to do to make the solutions work?”
(Connolly, 2007, p. 188).
Noticing change is a key factor in enhancing confidence. Providing people with meaningful compliments can be one of the most powerful ways to boost confidence. Even noticing small things, such as the table being tidy or dangerous objects being stored away from small hands, can mean something to a parent who is working on having their children remain or return to their care. Spending time with the parents, talking about their goals, hopes and dreams provides the opportunity to allow us to notice change. Exploring their goals may include asking questions about courses and how they are feeling about their parenting. Through understanding how they see their lives, with reference to their past, present and future, we can better understand how they see their role as a parent and thus more sensitively assess their capacity and willingness for change. Using scaling during these visits can assist in building motivation.
45

46
By noticing what they have been trying to do we validate their effort and encourage their continued progress.
Working with others
In 2006, Child, Youth and Family’s Chief
Social Worker, Dr Marie Connolly, raised an important question in the care and protection practice framework: “How are services well coordinated and are workers getting together to support planning, monitoring and transitions?”
(Connolly, 2007, p. 188). Working with others, or collaboration, is an important aspect of child protection social work and essential when considering ongoing safety for children and young people. Our experience has taught us that when meeting with professionals it is beneficial at the outset to plan ways to notice change and to be in a position to know that strengths are demonstrating safety (Turnell and Edwards, 1999).
The concrete things we can use to determine this may include observing a change in attitude or behaviour, for example, noticing a mother count to 10 before responding to a child’s repetitive drum banging.
Knowledge gained from recent reviews have reminded us that talking to each other and listening to everyone’s position allows us to share common knowledge and to share any concerns people may have. If we are only sharing with one or two individuals we essentially continue to work in silos.
We can all turn our minds to understanding any concerns someone may have and explore whether someone else may have information that counters the worry or conversely may add to it. This group setting then supports group planning to address the specific concerns and keeps everyone informed of how these will be addressed. The essential part of meeting like this is having structure and formulating a plan for moving forward. The critical elements of the plan involve allocating responsibilities and gauging change or progress. Yet, while all social work professionals need to work together, the statutory agency is responsible for leading any intervention. This responsibility is no different when the child is in our custody or at home with whänau. As the statutory agency responsible for child protection, the public looks to us to ensure the families with whom we are working are caring for their children’s safely.
Reflections from our recent reviews have also reaffirmed the importance of having the right people involved at the right time. It may be tempting to assume that an agency working with a family has the situation in hand, but we still need to truly understand what their focus is and what they are hoping to achieve. If the situation in a home changes and the agency is no longer able to meet the needs of the family, we need to know quickly. The benefit of having regular collaborative updates enables agencies to take prompt action as and when required.
We need to be in a position where our partners can come to us and have total confidence that an informed and prudent response will promptly be put into action. As leaders in the care and protection community, statutory agencies must be accountable as well as responsible.
Concluding remarks
Over the last few years we at Child, Youth and Family have made significant progress in addressing our unallocated cases and strengthening our initial assessment work. What has become increasingly evident on this journey is that we could do even better if we refreshed our vigilance in understanding and articulating the purpose and importance of our role when monitoring or intervening with a family.
Whenever Child, Youth and Family is involved with a family it is because the situation is serious.
Whether children are placed in care under the legal custody of the Chief Executive of the
Ministry of Social Development or alternatively remain in their parents’ care, there are worries and risks that need to be addressed – that is our job. We need to understand this and respond appropriately. To do this we need to lead the
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011

work with the families and our partners. When the work seems particularly difficult, it is worthwhile to acknowledge what a privileged place we as social workers are in.
REFERENCES
Connolly, M. (2007). Practice frameworks: Conceptual maps to guide interventions in child welfare. British
Journal of Social Work , 37 (5), 825–837.
Saleebey, D. (1996). The strengths perspective in social work practice: Extensions and cautions. Social Work, 41(3),
296–305.
Turnell, A. & Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of Safety: A safety and solution oriented approach to child protection casework.
New York: Norton.
47

48
Spending time reading books with a child is a fantastic way to build a relationship. The reading session provides an ideal opportunity to spend quality time with the child and better understand their view of the world. Some stories can help reassure the child that the world is a safe place for them and that people love and care for them.
The following children’s books are ideal for parents, social workers and caregivers to read with and to a child.
Bravo
Philip Waechter and Mani Port (translated by
Sally-Ann Spencer) published in 2011 by Gecko
Press, Wellington ISBN 978-1-877467-71-4
Helena’s father shouts about everything, a lot.
He comes from a long line of shouters. Deciding that she doesn’t want to become like her father and that she can tolerate the shouting no longer,
Helena leaves. She finds a new home with a stranger. Helena blossoms. Her parents miss her very much and her father vows to mend his ways and shout no longer, if only he could find her.
The family are reunited at the end of the story;
Helena’s father has indeed changed his ways.
This is a delightful tale highlighting the importance of a positive home environment and of how adult behaviour must change in order for children to feel safe. The bright illustrations are captivating and convey the emotions of all the characters in a way that children can understand.
Ideal for ages 5+
Zou and the Box of Kisses
Michel Gay (translated by Linda Burgess) published in 2011 by Gecko Press, Wellington
ISBN 978-1-87746-7743-8
Often when children are away from their parents for the first time they are frightened, upset and may worry that they have lost their parents’ love.
This is indeed the experience of Zou, a young zebra about to go off to a holiday camp. Although his parents are helping him to prepare for camp and he’s excited, Zou is also worried about being away from his parents. To help reassure him, Zou’s mum and dad create a reminder of their love for him that he can take to camp.
Sometimes a child will need to live away from their parents, in order to be safe. For such children, we need to help them remember that although the circumstances might be complicated, generally their parents and families will still love them. Zou and the Box of Kisses is a fantastic example of how parents can reassure their children when they come into care.
Ideal for ages 3+
999 Tadpoles Find a New Home
Ken Kimura with illustrations by Yasunari
Murakami. Published in 2010 by Gecko Press,
Wellington ISBN 978-1-877467-27-1
When their pond becomes too crowded the frog family must find a new home. Through adversity and danger they manage to find safety. This highlights the significance of helping children develop resilience. 999 Tadpoles Find a New Home provides a lovely depiction of how we understand that even the most traumatic of situations can lead to safety with the right conditions. The story could be especially relevant to children who are moving from one country, area or home to another. However, even a trip to the supermarket can seem very long to small children, who may well, like the tadpoles, ask the classic question ‘Are we there yet?’ The book is a reminder, for adults as well as children, that however hard the journey, getting there can be worth it.
Ideal for ages 6+
SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2011