HISTORY OF SOP
In 2007: 8 northern counties began
exploring the implementation of Signs of
Safety with SDM to create a practice model
to support practitioners and focus on
issues of Safety, Critical thinking and
Engagement of families.
CURRENTLY
• Estimate between about 48 counties in
CA currently have or are implementing
• SOP and APS is beginning in northern
CA
• 9 counties are participating in the IVE
Waiver where the practice for CW is SOP
CURRENTLY
• Backbone committee to support the
development and implementation of SOP
statewide
• Evaluation elements currently developed
– Practice Profiles
– Case Reviews
– Fidelity Tool
WHAT IS SAFETY-ORGANIZED PRACTICE?
Cultural Humility
Structured Decision Making
Signs of Safety
Partnership-Based
Collaborative Practice
Trauma-Informed Practice
Family/Child Team Meetings
Motivational Interviewing
Appreciative Inquiry
Solution-Focused Interviewing
SAFETY-ORGANIZED PRACTICE
GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIPS
• Solution-focused interviewing
• Strategies for interviewing
CRITICAL THINKING
• Information and Consultation
Framework
ENHANCING SAFETY
• Harm and danger statements
• Well-formed goals
• Building safety networks
• Collaborative planning
TRAUMA-INFORMED PRACTICES
•Symptoms of trauma can worsen already challenging situations and make
the work of engagement and increasing child safety even more difficult.
Trauma-informed practices can reduce ongoing symptoms and are woven
into safety-organized practice.
•Safety-organized practice draws heavily from the National Child Traumatic
Stress Network's principles and strategies and from Bruce Perry's work at
the National Trauma Academy, which focuses on trauma's impact on brain
development and child development.
•By focusing on assisting families and their communities in building their
own capacities for keeping children safe, safety-organized practice helps
clients respond to traumatic experiences.
CULTURAL HUMILITY
•Hu-mil-i-ty, noun.
•1. The quality or condition of being humble; lack of pride; modesty. 2. The act of modesty or
self-abasement; submission.
•The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1973; p. 441)
•Cultural Humility
•A cultural humility perspective challenges us to learn from the people with whom we interact,
reserve judgment, and bridge the cultural divide between our perspectives in order to
facilitate well-being and promote improved quality of life. Such a perspective frees the
observer from having to possess expert knowledge in order to maintain knowledgebased power, control, and authority over matters about which diverse populations are far
more knowledgeable.
•
•Tervalon, M., and Murray-Garcia, J. (1998)
DEFINITION OF CULTURAL
HUMILITY
•“Cultural humility is the
acknowledgement of one’s own
barriers to true intercultural
understanding. It is the difference
between intellectually knowing of
another culture and being able to
truly
relate to it.”
•
Unite for Sight, 2011
ELEMENTS OF CULTURAL
HUMILITY
1. Embrace the complexity of diversity
2. Be open to individual differences and the social
experiences due to these differences
3. Reserve judgment
4. Relate to others in ways that are most understandable to
them
5. Consider cultural humility as a constant effort to become
more familiar with the worldview of the children and families
we serve and the agency staff and community partners who
serve them
ELEMENTS OF CULTURAL
HUMILITY
6. Instill a collaborative effort in help-giving
7. Encourage staff and community partners
to offer help that demonstrates familiarity
with the living environment of children and
families being served, building on their
strengths while reducing factors that
negatively affect the goals of safety,
permanence, and well-being
ELEMENTS OF CULTURAL
HUMILITY
8. “Know thyself” and the ways in which biases
interfere with an ability to objectively listen to or
work with others, including children and families,
agency staff, and community partners
9. Critically challenge one’s “openness” to learn
from others
10.Build organizational support that demonstrates
cultural humility as an important and ongoing
aspect of the work itself
INTERVIEWING
• A practice of using questions and having conversations that
gather rich, detailed, pertinent information about the history of
protection and the history of the problem:
• Helps key stakeholders (family, workers, providers, supervisors)
think through difficult situations together;
• Develops a common language, purpose, and goals;
• Gathers the information needed for the Information Framework
(safety mapping)and SDM assessments
• Is based on solution-focused interviewing.
THREE QUESTIONS THAT ORGANIZE THE
INTERVIEW
What are we
worried
about?
What is
working well?
What needs to
happen next?
"WHAT ARE WE WORRIED ABOUT?"
•
Ask questions that reveal …
Caregiver
Behavior
Impact on
the child
GENERALIZATIONS VERSUS BEHAVIORAL
DESCRIPTIONS AND IMPACT
"She is mentally ill."
–
–
–
–
–
How does he/she know?
What caregiver behaviors are associated with it?
When do those behaviors show themselves?
How do those behaviors impact the child?
How do you know? How do you find out?
• What does the child know?
• What has the child seen?
• What are you worried is happening or will happen?
"WHAT IS WORKING WELL?"
•
Ask questions that reveal …
Caregiver
Behavior
Impact on
the child
SOLUTION-FOCUSED
INTERVIEWING
ALL SURROUNDED BY: CULTURAL HUMILITY
Cultural Humility
Scaling
Exception
Questions
• Danger/safety
• Progress
• Past history of
protection
Coping
• Skill at finding
solutions to
difficulty
Position
Questions
• Seeing through
other people's eyes
Preferred
Future
• Future goals
Cultural Humility
SAFETY MAPPING
Safety Mapping or
Information/Consultation
Framework
SAFETY MAPPING: ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING
CONTEXT: Purpose of the Consult, Family/System; Cultural Considerations
WHAT ARE WE WORRIED ABOUT?
WHAT IS WORKING WELL?
Harm and Danger:
(SDM safety threats described here)
Complicating Factors:
(Individual risk factors described
here)
Safety:
Impact
on
child?
Strengths/Protective Capacity:
(Most SDM protective capacities
described here)
WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN NEXT?
Creating and sharing danger statements, safety goals enhancing the safety
network, and planning
(SDM risk level—use results to help determine next steps)
0
Danger
10
Safety
Chin, S., Decter, P., Madsen, W., & Vogel, J. (2010). Enhancing risk assessment through organizational learning: A mid-stream report from Massachusetts.
Protecting Children, 25(3), 7–20. Based on Turnell, A., & Edwards S. (1999). Signs of Safety. New York, NY: Norton
What Are We
Worried About?
• Cheryl turned on the gas
stove with her children at
home, flooding the home with
toxic fumes. Both she and the
children passed out.
• Cheryl lost her job and cannot
pay her bills.
• Cheryl has been diagnosed
with clinical depression.
• Cheryl stopped taking her
medication three months ago.
• Cheryl says her ex-husband
hit her a number of years ago.
• Cheryl's father was physically
dangerous to both her and
her mom when she was a
child, and she had to grow up
outside of her parents’ care.
0
Danger
What Is Working Well?
• Cheryl put the children in
next room and opened a
window before turning on
the gas.
• The girls’ pediatrician and
teacher say Cheryl takes
good care of the girls. They
are medically up to date; she
attends parent/teacher
conferences and sends the
girls to school dressed
cleanly with lunches packed.
What Needs to
Happen Next?
• Danger statements
• Safety goals
• Expanding the safety
network
• Planning
Risk level is moderate by
score—upgraded to high by
policy. There also is an
unresolved safety threat.
• Cheryl took out a restraining
order after her husband hit
her.
• Cheryl is proud of her high
school diploma.
• Cheryl's mother made sure
she was protected from
violence and able to get an
education living at Cheryl’s
aunt’s house.
10
Safety
SAFETY MAPPING/INFORMATION AND
CONSULTATION FRAMEWORK
•What: Safety mapping is a process of gathering and organizing the
information to reach joint understanding and agreement.
•Why: A regular problem in child welfare is the lack of understanding,
participation, and agreement between the family and the organization
(and within the organization itself).
•How: Can be used with the family to guide an assessment and
planning conversation and can be used in supervision or case
consultation.
THE THREE QUESTIONS:
What are we
worried
about?
What is
working well?
What needs to
happen next?
GENOGRAM
SET THE CONTEXT
Purpose
• What do the
people attending
the session want
to get from it?
• If it involves a
decision of some
kind, which SDM
assessment can
help with that
decision?
• Know what
questions to ask.
People and
Community
• Who is in the
family?
• Extended family?
• Who else cares
about the child?
• Who else knows
what is going on?
• Genogram
• Ecomap
• Safety circles
• Everything is
stated openly
Cultural
Considerations
• How does the
family identify
across critical
parts of their
identity (race,
class, ethnicity,
religion, sexual
orientation, etc.)?
• Name differences
openly.
• Be curious about
what you do not
understand.
Key Terms
What is
working
well?
What are
we worried
about?
Harm
Safety
Danger
Complicating factors
Strengths
Risk
SAFETY
Safety is:
Actions of protection
taken by the caregiver
that mitigate the danger
and are demonstrated
over time.
Initial source: Boffa, J., & Podestra, H. (2004). Partnership and risk assessment in child
protection practice. Protecting Children, 19(2), 35–49. Adapted over time by Andrew
Turnell and members of the Massachusetts Child Welfare Institute.
SAFETY
•
•
•
•
All families have some signs of safety.
The best predictor of future protection is past protection.
Without searching for examples of protection, it is difficult
to know the extent of the signs of danger or to determine
how protection could be enhanced and measured in the
present and future.
With safety, the key is to consider the definition: are these
actions of protection demonstrated over time? Or are
these things good and helpful … but maybe not safety?
Safety and services are not the same thing!
SAFETY
Caregiver
Behavior
Impact on
the child
COMPLICATING FACTORS
• Anything that complicates the work with the
family that is not direct harm.
• Warning signs, red flags, issues that make the
provision of protection more difficult but in and
of themselves are not direct dangers.
Mental illness, teenage parenting, poverty, low IQ—
what else is a complicating factor?
SUPPORTING STRENGTHS
Skills of living, coping skills, or cultural/familial
histories of recovery or support that are important
but do not directly support the provision of
protection.
Being organized, exercising, being good at
sports/school—what else?
SAFETY NETWORKS
Goal of Safety Network:
•A group of people (family, friends,
community people)committed to
keeping a child(ren) safe.
BUILDING SAFETY NETWORKS:
PRINCIPLES:
• CPS involvement in the family’s life is
TEMPORARY.
• The network of PERMANENT support people
implement the safety plan!
• Finding out who the family has already told
about their CPS involvement & building on it is
important to do right from the start of our work.
Family Safety Circles Tool
CHILD
Building a Safety
Network
Who can help to
keep the child
safe?
1. Paternal
Grandmother
1.Sister
2.Next door
neighbor
3.Best friend
4.Aunt
5.Work friend
Close: A list of people who can be part of the Safety Network
INCLUDING THE CHILD’S VOICE
House of Good Things
House of Worries
House of Wishes/Dreams
THREE HOUSES
• Developed by Nicki Weld’s in New
Zealand
• Currently working with Nicki and
Chadwich Center to integrate a stronger
trauma focus, screening and assessment
with the Three Houses.
SAFETY HOUSE
THE SAFETY HOUSE
•
•
Overview: This is your house in the future where you always feel safe.
Inner circle: Who lives with you in this house?
•
Outer circle around the house: Who can come visit?
•
Red circle to the side: Who shouldn’t be allowed in?
•
The roof: What kind of rules will a house like this need to make sure you
always feel safe?
•
The path: If the beginning of the path is where everyone is worried and
(known danger is happening) and the end of the path is where this Safety
House exists and no one is worried, where are you now? What do adults
need to do so you could be one step closer to this house?
PRACTICE PROFILES
Version date: 5/28/13
Practice Element
Emergent Practice
Accomplished Practice
Distinguished Practice
Built Infrastructure and Now Using
Gaining Consistency and Collaborating
Innovating and Sustaining
Click to edit Master title style
Harm and Danger/Risk Statements
Harm and Danger/Risk Statements
Harm statements and danger statements or risk of danger are short, simple behavior-based statements which can be used to help family members,
collaterals and staff working with the family become very clear about what has happened in the past, why CWS are involved with families and what
CWS staff worry may happen in the future. They lay the groundwork for the important ‘difficult conversations’ to occur and help ensure that we are
talking about the most important things to address with the families with whom we work.
Purpose
The depth of knowledge
behind the reason for why
the practice is used.
Describes Harm and Danger
Statements as key elements of Safety
Mapping that are about what
happened to the child that brought
them to the attention of CPS and
about what might happen in the
future.
Describes Harm and Danger
Statements as key elements of Safety
Mapping that have clear and specific
statements about the harm to the
child in the care of the parents.
Describes the Harm Statement
as having the following 3 distinct
components:
1) Who reported (“or it
was reported that…”).
2) What happened to the
child, where, when, etc.
3) The impact it had on the child.
Describes the Danger Statement
as having the following 3 distinct
components:
1) “CPS is worried that … (or the SW
and other professionals or others
in the family network are
worried that…).
2) Behavior/action of the
parents (what parents might
do).
3)
Possible impact on the
child (what we are worried
may
Describes Harm and Danger
Statements as key elements of Safety
Mapping that have the most meaning
when they are developed in the
Safety Mapping process with the
family, network and other
professionals to achieve a shared
understanding of the worries about
danger and the reason for CPS
involvement with the family.
15
Version date: 5/28/13
Practice Element
Emergent Practice
Accomplished Practice
Distinguished Practice
Built Infrastructure and Now Using
Gaining Consistency and Collaborating
Innovating and Sustaining
Click to edit Master title style
Harm and Danger Statements…(continued)
happen to the child, or what
may happen to the child
again)
1
Group Agreements
CPS actions relative
to having shared
understanding and
agreement on how
stakeholders will
work
together to achieve the
group’s desired outcomes.
2
3
Uses Harm and Danger Statements to
engage caregivers in the casework
process and checks for their
understanding and agreement with
these statements.
1
2
3
Describes the development of Harm
and Danger Statements as important
to clearly identify the caregiver
actions that have a harmful effect on
the child so that everyone
understands the worries about
danger and the reason for CPS
involvement.
4
5
6
Fosters open discussion among
family, and professionals regarding
the Harm and Danger Statements.
4
5
6
7
8
9
Engages the family, their network and
other stakeholders in the safety
mapping process to develop Harm
and Danger Statements.
Uses group agreements to promote
working relationships in which
participants can share their individual
contexts, perspectives and differences
of opinion to inform the development
of the statements.
7
8
9
16
Version date: 5/28/13
Practice Element
Emergent Practice
Accomplished Practice
Distinguished Practice
Built Infrastructure and Now Using
Gaining Consistency and Collaborating
Innovating and Sustaining
Harm and Danger Statements…(continued)
Click to edit Master title style
Stakeholders
CPS actions to engage
individuals or organizations
with an investment in the
desired outcomes.
Develops Harm and Danger
Statements as an individual activity or
in consultation with a supervisor to
identify harm and danger.
Shares statements with
caregivers and checks for
understanding.
1
Context
CPS actions relative to the
stakeholders’ unique
circumstances and
perspectives which need to
be considered.
2
3
Works with the family to identify
stakeholders in the child’s
safety.
Develops a plan to share the
Harm and Danger Statements
with the family, safety network
and professionals.
Ensures the safety of the group by
anticipating possible conflict among
participants and setting up alternative
ways of participating, i.e., telephone
access.
4
5
6
Voices concern that other casework
demands will impact the ability to
develop Harm and Danger Statements
in the course of an assessment or
investigation.
Asks about the individual and
systemic barriers that challenge the
family and professional’s,
understanding and agreeing with the
Harm and Danger statements.
Has awareness that the caregivers
and CPS may have conflicting
priorities regarding the purpose and
use of Harm and Danger Statements.
1
2
3
Is aware that participants may have
other commitments that make it
difficult to reach agreement on the
statements.
4
5
6
Everything in accomplished practice,
plus:
Ensures the voice of the child is clear,
and when possible actively involves
the child in the development of Harm
and Danger Statements.
7
8
9
Brainstorms with family and safety
network on how to mitigate
individual and systemic barriers to
the group’s reaching shared
understanding and agreement
regarding the Harm and Danger
Statements.
7
8
9
17
Version date: 5/28/13
Practice Element
Emergent Practice
Accomplished Practice
Distinguished Practice
Built Infrastructure and Now Using
Gaining Consistency and Collaborating
Innovating and Sustaining
Click to edit Master title style
Harm and Danger Statements …(Continued)
Content
CPS actions necessary
to achieve the desired
outcomes.
Uses Harm and Danger Statements as
an individual activity or in
consultation with a supervisor to
identify harm and danger.
Preliminary Harm Statements often
include clinical, professional language
to describe caregiver actions and the
impact on the child.
Refines any preliminary Harm and
Danger Statements with the family,
network and other professionals to
include all voices in describing the
harm to the child and the reason for
CPS involvement.
Statements begin to reflect the
behavioral descriptions of caregiver
actions and the impact on the child.
Guides the group process to
 Formulate shared Harm
and Danger Statement.
 Ensure that statements are
described in specific
behavioral terms.
 Identify concrete logistical
next steps for the group to
meet.
Actively checks for shared
understanding and agreement with all
participants regarding the iterative
safety mapping process and identified
next steps.
1
Desired
Outcomes The
results from
implementing the practice.
2
3
A Harm and Danger Statement that
uses the reason for referral and
available case history to describe:
1. What happened
2. The impact to the child
3. What CPS is worried about
1
2
3
4
5
6
Checks in with the child (as
appropriate) to determine their
understanding and agreement with
the Harm and Danger statements.
7
8
9
A Harm and Danger Statement that
describes the harm, safety threats
and worries to the family, their
network and other professionals so
there is a clear understanding of why
CPS is involved with the child and
family.
A Harm and Danger Statement that
has been developed with the family,
network and other professionals that
includes a description of the harm
that resulted from the caregiver’s
behaviors and the stakeholders’
worries about future harm.
Harm and Danger Statement becomes
the platform for developing the Safety
Goals (what it needs to look like for
reunification or case closure).
4
5
6
The network then collaborates to use
the Harm and Danger Statement to
co-develop the Safety Goals (what)
and the Safety Plan (how).
7
8
9
18
Version date: 5/28/13
Practice Element
Emergent Practice
Accomplished Practice
Distinguished Practice
Built Infrastructure and Now Using
Gaining Consistency and Collaborating
Innovating and Sustaining
Harm and Danger Statements …(Continued)
Click to edit Master title style
Reflection
Consideration of progress to
date with regard to the
working relationships
among the stakeholders to
achieving the desired
outcomes.
The preliminary Harm and Danger
Statement is held as a theory of what
may have happened and what could
happen in the future if nothing
changes.
The Harm and Danger Statement
is refined with the family to reflect
more concrete behavioral
descriptions of what specifically
occurred.
The worker facilitates a space where
all stakeholders can reflect on and
critically think about their
understanding of the facts that led to
the Harm and Danger Statement.
Theories about the Harm and Danger
Statements are discussed with
supervisor or other professionals.
Worker invites others perspectives
and is more open to exploring
alternative reasons the harm may
have happened or that it may not
have occurred as originally suspected.
4
5
6
Stakeholders hold a balanced view of
how not just the history of harm, but
also the history of protection,
contributes to how worried we should
be about future danger.
7
8
9
Ties Harm and Danger Statements in
the context of Safety Mapping to
engage the family, their network and
professionals in the development of
concrete, measurable actions (Safety
Plan) that, when demonstrated over
time, will ensure child safety.
Uses Harm and Danger Statements in
the context of Safety Mapping so that
the family, their network and other
professionals develop a clear
understanding of what it needs to
look like for CPS to be satisfied that
the child is safe.
1
Next Steps
The ability to which the
desired outcomes are
utilized for subsequent case
activities.
2
3
Uses Harm and Danger
Statements individually to focus
the harm and danger to the child
and determine next steps in
service planning and provision.
Follows up with caregivers to attend
to the needs of the child.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
19
TRAINING AND COACHING
• Coaching is defined as the process by
which the coach creates structured,
focused interaction and uses appropriate
strategies, tools and techniques to
promote desirable and sustainable
change for the benefit of the learner, in
turn making a positive impact on the
organization.
•
~ Adapted from Mink, Owen and Mink, (1993) and from Cox Bachkirova and Clutterbuck (2010)
CHILD
WELFARE
COACHING
TOOLKIT
An implementation
toolkit for coaching in
the child welfare
organization
Funded by Casey Family Programs
CONTINUUM OF
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES:
• Group Supervision
• RED TEAMS (review, evaluate, direct)
• Differential Response
THANK YOU!
REFERENCES
•
Berg, I. K. & Kelly, S. (2000). Building solutions in child protective services. New York, NY: Norton.
•
Boffa, J. & Armitage, E. (1999). The Victorian risk framework: Developing a professional judgment
approach to risk assessment in child protection work. 7th Australian Conference on Child Abuse and
Neglect, Perth, Australia.
•
Children's Research Center. (2008). Structured Decision Making®: An evidence-based approach to
human services. Retrieved from http://www.nccd-crc.org/crc/pdf/2008_sdm_book.pdf
•
de Shazer, S. (1985). Keys to solution in brief therapy. New York, NY: Norton.
•
Department of Child Protection. (2011). The signs of safety child protection practice framework.
Department of Child Protection, Perth, Australia. Retrieved from
http://www.signsofsafety.net/westernaustralia
•
Johnson, W. (2004). Effectiveness of California's child welfare Structured Decision Making® model:
A prospective study of the validity of the California family risk assessment. Sacramento, CA:
California Department of Social Services. Retrieved from http://www.nccdcrc.org/crc/pubs/ca_sdm_model_feb04.pdf
•
Lohrbach, S., & Sawyer, R. (2004). Creating a constructive practice: Family and professional
partnership in high-risk child protection case conferences. Protecting Children, 19(2): 26–35.
•
Turnell, A., & Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of safety. New York, NY: Norton
•
White, M., & Epston E. (1999). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York, NY: Norton