WELCOME
THE STRENGHTENING FAMILIES
APPROACH TO CHAIRING CHILD
PROTECTION CONFERENCES
A Pan London Learning Event
1
Introducing the model – Jacquie Burke –
Wandsworth
• What is the model
• The model in the UK
• The model as a whole service
intervention
• International context
2
Signs of Safety - what is the model?
• The Signs of Safety approach to child protection
casework was developed by Andrew Turnell and
Steve Edwards in Western Australia in 1990s
• The approach now being utilised across Western
Australian and in jurisdictions in the U.S.A., Canada,
U.K., Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, Australia and Japan.
3
Signs of Safety – what is the model?
• One of the greatest problems to bedevil child
protection practice is that assessment and planning
processes privilege the professional voice and erase
the perspectives of children, parents and other family
members.
4
Signs of safety – what is the model?
• Focus on the assessment and not the tool
• How you do the work WITH and not TO children and
their families
• Rigour and Grace - Clear idea of why you are doing
what you are doing with families and a sense of
connectedness to those families
• If what you are doing is not working try something
different
• Your questions are you power tools – use them
thoughtfully and purposefully
5
Core principles
• Constructive working relationships between
professionals and family members
• Adopting a position of curiosity – as soon as a
professional decides they know the truth they begin
to ignore other new evidence
• Putting the thinking back with practitioners
• Children and families are the arbiters of whether what
we do is working
6
Key disciplines
• All statements must be made in simple everyday
language
• Statements must focus on specific observable
behaviours and avoid value laden language
• Skilful use of authority
• Assessment as a work in progress rather than a set
piece
7
Signs of Safety in the UK
• Child protection conferences barely changed since
late 1980s.
• Not the registration that protects the child.
• THANK YOU WEST BERKSHIRE.
• Engaging parents as part of the solution.
• CP process test of ‘willingness to co-operate’.
• Parents freeze at decision to make a CP plan.
• Professionals head for the door!
8
Child Protection Conferences
•
•
•
•
•
•
Layout
Refreshments
Chair facilitates and challenges
Family speaks first and gets opportunity to respond
Jargon free
Clear and transparent mapping of concerns and
strengths
• Risk statement
• Plan – focus on bringing about change
• Decision last
9
The conference room
10
What information is collected
• What are we worried about?
– Harm/danger
– Complicating factors
• Grey areas
• What is going well?
– Strengths
– Safety
• What will we do next?
– The plan
11
Whole Service Approach
• 6 authorities in the SE working with Resolutions
Consultancy
• Whole service approach – training from DCS to social
workers
• Safety planning, 3 houses, words and pictures
• Multi-agency training
• Appreciative Enquiry
• Consistent language across the partnership that is
jargon free and represents a holistic view of family
functioning and child safety.
12
Whole Service Approach
•
•
•
•
Needs senior management buy-in
Values critical thinking and challenge
Lets go of the easy answer to wicked problems
Encourages not the assertion of a definitive truth but
asking penetrating rigorous questions focused on the
five domains.
• The senior management solution of making fast
judgements, giving strong direction and what needs
to happen can undermine and stunt worker
development.
13
Western Australia
• Year 1
• 1/3 on board, 1/3 on the fence 1/3 sitting it out
• Language, concepts penetrating, lots of enthusiasm
and drive visible
• But, a lot of old wine in new bottles
14
Western Australia
•
•
•
•
Year 2
2/3 on board
Staff survey – 64% with greater job satisfaction
families’ better understanding of issues and
expectations
• Framework providing clarity and focus for child
protection work
• Better partnership working
• Better decision making
15
Western Australia
Year 3
• Growth in children in care reduced from 13% to 5%
• Assessments leading to intensive family support
increasing from 2.5% to 13%
• Assessments leading to protection and care
applications reduced (reduced 24%)
• Recidivism no change at 6.9%
• Endless challenge to build practice depth and skill
16
Model fidelity?
• The Signs of Safety approach should
not be regarded as a fixed product (like
say a box of cornflakes) rather it
continues to evolve.
17
Implementing the approachThe Barnet Experience
Liz Shaw
18
Why did we want to do it?
• Learning from the Brent experience-message it is doable, didn’t rely on model fidelity, can bespoke
• Engagement from our group of chairs
• A person centred no brainer - better parent
participation
• Chance to modernise CPCs - improve analysis and
avoid narrative in info share and planning
• Potential efficiency savings – admin time and almost
free to do
• Minutes template refreshing, LCPP compliant
19
How did we do it?
• Project plan to Barnet SCB- they held authority
for model, logo on templates etc
• Preparation briefings for all agencies
• Pilot approved sample CPCs- started end 2011
• Evaluation event Feb 2012
• Pilot rolled out to all CPCs April 2012
• Second evaluation event June 2012
• SCB approved model ongoing basis Sept 2012
20
Involving Partners
• Broad consensus to do it
• Leads for agencies cascaded info and fed
into planning group
• Chairs prepared pilot practitioners
• Evaluation sought from attendees and leads
• Discussions on multi agency forms and
templates eg police/GPs use alternative/CS use core
asst
21
Preparing Parents
• Current leaflet didn’t conflict with model
but insert added in simple language
• Chairs called all parents for initial pilot
• Feedback form from parents after all
CPCs
• Props for parents eg to enable them to
take notes
22
Involving the Child
• Have funding for advocacy for CPCs but
still in tendering process
• Created a specific column on white
board for the child’s wishes and feelings
to keep the child “in the room”
• Model has not increased participation of
children as yet
23
Practical considerations
• Don’t use electronic white board. Have
trad. white boards to view all info “at a
glance”
• Minute takers attend and can type direct
into minutes template
• Minutes format being loaded onto ICS
to eliminate separate word version
24
Evaluation - themes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Practicalities – physical use of space
Involvement of child/parent
Info sharing under 6 dimensions
Risk analysis – scaling
The Plan
Thresholding/decision making
Recording/minutes
25
Evaluation cont
• Feedback from partners positive
• Parents prefer it to the old model
• Chairs like it but meetings are more
physically demanding and intense
• Amendments to tools eg scaling exercise,
order of phases of the CPC
• Are there any differences in style of CP
plans eg SMARTer?
• Has it cut our numbers of plans?
26