1

THE STRENGHTENING FAMILIES APPROACH TO CHAIRING CHILD

PROTECTION CONFERENCES

A Pan London Learning Event

WELCOME

2

Introducing the model – Jacquie Burke – Wandsworth

• What is the model

• The model in the UK

• The model as a whole service intervention

• International context

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

18

Implementing the approach-The Barnet Experience

Liz Shaw

19

Why did we want to do it?

• Learning from the Brent experience-message it is do-able, 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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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?