Signs of Safety Protocol:
Child Protection Case Conferences
Purpose:
To provide information to practitioners and team managers about the principles and processes of using the signs of safety model within child protection case conferences.
Page 23 of 23
Review date
DOCUMENT HISTORY /Version number: / 3.0 / Status:
(draft/ final) / final
Date Written / 14/8/12
Revised 18/7/13 / Dates of Issue for consultation
Equality Impact Assessment / N/A
Supporting documents / “Working together to Safeguard Children” (2010)
“Young Person’s Guide to Child Protection Conferences in Newport” (2012)
Authorised by:
Children’s Management Team / Date:
16/10/12 / Ratified by: / Date:
Lead Responsibility: / Author: / Implementation Date: / Review Date:
Outcome of Review:
Revised 18/7/13 to align with new CCM Conference Processes.
Page 23 of 23
Review date
Table of Contents
Contents
1) Introduction 4
2) Context 5
3) Summary of the scope and benefits of the Signs of Safety process within Child Protection Conferences 7
4) Completing the Signs of Safety “Summary and Analysis of Risk” document 10
5) Procedure for Signs of Safety within Initial Child Protection Conferences 13
6) Procedure for Signs of Safety in Review Child Protection Conferences 16
7) Involving children and young people in the “Signs of Safety” process 18
8) Glossary of terms 20
Appendices 21
Page 23 of 23
Review date
1) Introduction
1.1 This protocol is produced to provide guidance to social work practitioners on the actions and procedures to be followed when using signs of safety as part of the child protection case conference procedure.
1.2 This signs of safety protocol is to be read alongside the “Working Together to Safeguard Children” (2010) guidance in respect of child protection conferences, with which this protocol is also compliant.
1.3 This signs of safety protocol also introduces the consultation document “Young Person’s Guide to Child Protection Conferences in Newport” and the associated ‘Conference Questionnaire’ which must be provided to the child/ young person to complete (with assistance from the social worker where required) and returned to the Independent Reviewing Officer prior to initial and review conferences taking place.
2) Context
2.4 The signs of safety approach was developed by Steve Edwards and Andrew Turnell in Western Australia in the 1990’s in collaboration with front line child protection social workers.
2.5 The Signs of safety model is being used internationally. Closer to home the model is currently fully established in the local authorities of Brent, Newcastle and West Berkshire.
2.6 The signs of safety approach utilises ‘solution focused’ and ‘focused problem resolution’ brief therapy ideas and techniques (Berg 1994; deShazer 1984; 1985; 1988; 1991). This means the focus of the model is on engaging the family and professionals in collaborative planning in order to identify and build safety rather than trying to eliminate danger.
2.7 The approach is based on the culture of “appreciative inquiry around front line practice” (Turnell 2006). This means the process of asking the right questions and focussing on risks, protective and complicating factors.
2.8 The signs of safety process allows for the transparent, balanced and non-judgemental approach of analysing the information, therefore, facilitating clear and open communication between families and professionals whilst providing evidence based judgements and decisions.
Table 1- The signs of safety risk assessment process
2.9 In its basic form the signs of safety framework can be understood as containing four domains for inquiry-
- What are we worried about? (Past harm, future danger, complicating factors and the unknown/ grey areas)
- What’s working well for the family? (Existing strengths and safety)
- What needs to happen? (Future safety plan)
- Where are we on a scale of 0 -10?
10= Child protection conference agencies being satisfied that there is enough safety to close the case,
0= Re-occurrence of abuse is certain.
NB. Newport Authority are not presently using the scale within the current conference process, however, following a review period on the usage of ‘Signs of Safety’ there is the expectation that the scale will be implemented.
3) Summary of the scope and benefits of the Signs of Safety process within Child Protection Conferences
3.1 The process has been developed from direct frontline child protection practice which seeks to create a more constructive culture around child protection, safeguarding and practice.
3.2 There will be a consistent multi-agency approach to Child Protection Conferences held in Newport.
3.3 The process facilitates open communication between families and professionals and a clear opportunity to work in partnership addressing risk and identifying protective factors.
3.4 The process means that children and young people have their voices heard and are actively engaged in the assessment and safety planning process. It is hoped that this will widen the opportunity to increase the attendance and active participation of children, young people and their families in child protection conferences in making decisions that affect their lives. (Meeting the Strategic Objectives of the NSCB Business Plan of “Proactive Working” [3] and “Consultation and Participation” [5]).
3.5 A specific one page tool (see table 2) that can be used by;
- the social worker in mapping their evidence/ judgements on the case and in providing a clear risk analysis based on the evidence as part of their core assessment;
- each agency representative within the conference in order to record, reflect and analyse the information explored at the child protection conference;
- the parents to assist them in identifying what they see as the risks and protective factors within their family;
- and where appropriate, the child/ young person in attendance at conference or gained via the social worker during the assessment process.
Table 2- Summary and Analysis of Risk Document
3.6 The process and the tools allow the social worker the opportunity to explore the case through a focussed lens which will assist them with particularly complex and protracted cases. The process also maintains a focus on child safety.
3.7 This approach allows for greater collaboration and input from partner agencies involved in the child protection process, therefore, placing more of an emphasis on the participating professionals to be involved in the actual assessment of risk and protective factors during the conference. This approach replaces the former traditional conference format which was felt to be flawed due to the insufficient time spent on effectively planning often resulting in unfeasible plans which families/ professionals were unwilling/ unable to co-operate with. The traditional conference format has also been criticised for the lack of parental involvement in the process, thus creating an environment whereby the opportunity to challenge information was difficult and often missed, and the process itself where once particular decisions had been reached at conference they would often go unchecked at subsequent meetings/ reviews
3.8 All reports for conference will be read prior to the start of the meeting by family members and professionals so that only relevant information arising from the reports and discussions will be dealt with during conference.
3.9 The process allows for increased time to negotiate and formulate better quality, SMART Child Protection plans that all professionals and family members understand and implement.
3.10 Signs of Safety as a process also offers the longer term scope of application to other aspects of social work intervention outside the Child Protection Conference Arena, for example, within Child in Need planning; the IFST Family Plan; Looked After Children planning; initial and core assessments; strategy discussions and meetings; and supervision. By using the process holistically it is the anticipated outcome that there will be improvements across our interventions with children and families.
4) Completing the Signs of Safety “Summary and Analysis of Risk” document
4.1 The four categories are:
- Key Danger/ Harm Factors
- Protective Factors/ Strengths
- Complicating Factors
- Grey Areas
4.2 The Risk Assessment document (see appendix 1) is provided to each party at conference by the IRO for completion, however, it is the clear expectation of the social worker that the “Signs of Safety” categories are explicitly referenced in the analysis section of their core assessment or review conference document. This information can be provided in bullet point format under the category headings, for example,
- Key Danger/ Harm Factors
· (Child) suffered a broken rib when mother and step-father were fighting and it is unknown who caused the injury. Professionals are worried that (child) will be seriously injured again, suffer permanent injury or even die if he is returned to mother and step-father’s care.
4.3 Each of the categories should be completed wherever possible with statements focussing on specific, observable behaviours avoiding jargon, professionalised language or judgement loaded terms. For example, “Mary is not taking prescribed medication or attending appointments with the psychiatrist” (Turnell, 2012).
4.4 Information to be included in the Key Danger/ Harm Factors domain:
4.5 Information to be included in the Protective Factors/ Strengths domain:
4.6 Information to be included in the Complicating Factors domain:
4.7 Information to be included in the Grey Areas domain:
5) Procedure for Signs of Safety within Initial Child Protection Conferences
Table 3
5.1 It is the expectation of the social worker to ensure that the ‘signs of safety’ analysis is clearly recorded in the analysis section of the CCM Core Assessment. As per CCM CP Module Compliance from 1st July 2013, the social worker is required to prepare the ICPC Report document which contains the “reason for the core assessment”, “analysis” and “risk analysis” (SOS format) from the CCM Core Assessment record. This document, along with the Chronology of Significant Events (word document), and CCM Outline Child Protection Plan (per child- printed in landscape format) must be available to the IRO at least 2 days before the initial conference is convened.
5.2 There is the expectation of the social worker to support the child/ young person in completing the ‘conference questionnaire’ attached to the “Young Person’s Guide to Child Protection Conferences in Newport”, which should be provided to children/ young people prior to a conference being convened. The completed questionnaire should be returned to the IRO at least 2 days before the initial child protection conference takes place.
5.3 Prior to the ICPC starting the IRO will provide each party (including parents and young people) with a blank ‘signs of safety document’, the IRO will provide the conference with an introduction to ‘signs of safety’ and explain the process of completing the document.
5.4 The ICPC will follow the timetable for conference and the social worker will discuss their analysis and risk analysis. Rather than the traditional style of reading a report to the conference the new process promotes an open environment for discussion with greater emphasis on involved agency contribution and parent/ young person participation.
5.5 Following the decision in respect of registration there will be a discussion and agreement in respect of the child protection plan. It is the expectation of the social worker to have prepared and completed an “Outline Child Protection Plan” (CCM document) which will be explored and agreed in conjunction with the signs of safety risk analysis.
5.6 The IRO will collect the completed signs of safety documents at the close of conference, the information will be collated and recorded in the conference minutes and distributed to conference members.
6) Procedure for Signs of Safety in Review Child Protection Conferences
Table 4
6.1 It is the expectation of the social worker to provide the CCM Review Child Protection Conference Family Report; Signs of Safety risk assessment (word document) and most recent set of core group minutes (word document) to the IRO at least 2 days before the review conference takes place.
6.2 There is the expectation of the social worker to support the child/ young person in completing the conference questionnaire attached to the “Young Person’s Guide to Child Protection Conferences in Newport”, which should be provided to children/ young people prior to a conference being convened. The completed questionnaire should be returned to the IRO at least 2 days before the review conference takes place.
6.3 ‘Signs of Safety’ is a working document and is not a static risk assessment. The purpose of the process is to facilitate communication and identification in respect of new risks becoming identified or if issues have been resolved. Therefore, it is highly likely that the signs of safety analysis will change at each review child protection conference, with the hoped for outcome that the risk would have been reduced to a level where the child’s name can be removed from Newport’s Child Protection Register.
6.4 Where de-registration is the recommendation of the social worker at a review conference there is the expectation that an updated CCM Core Assessment would have been completed in conjunction with the documents as listed in 6.1 with the additional proposed “CCM Child in Need Care Plan” (per child- printed in landscape format).
7) Involving children and young people in the “Signs of Safety” process
7.1 As a social worker there is the expectation that you engage with the child/ young person not only to ensure that they understand the child protection conference process but also, and most importantly, to ascertain their wishes and feelings.
7.2 It is the expectation that the Social Worker engages the child/ young person in order to ascertain their wishes and feelings and that this information is clearly reported in the assessments for each child and also via the ‘conference questionnaire’ (attached to the “Young Person’s Guide to Child Protection Conferences in Newport”) which must be completed by the child/ young person and provided to the IRO before initial and review child protection conferences.
7.3 As part of the on-going commitment to improving consultation and participation of parents and children/ young people at child protection conferences it is of importance to ensure that children/ young people are provided with the opportunity to attend conference, whenever suitable/ appropriate. It would be good practice to discuss a child/ young person’s attendance at conference with the IRO in advance in order to explore and identify any areas in which the child/ young person will not be able to participate.