Transcript Slide 1

Children’s Aid Society of Brant
SIGNS OF SAFETY PRESENTATION
Strength-Based, Safety-Organized Practice
What is the “Signs of Safety” Model?
• A safety organized and strengths-based approach to
providing child welfare services
• The manager/facilitator utilizes an assessment and
planning framework to “map” cases
• The map is a picture depicting the child’s circumstances
in his/her family
• The map helps everyone from the “biggest” person (ex. a
director) to the “smallest” person (the child) participating
in the conference to have a common (and balanced)
understanding of the child’s and family’s situation
• The map facilitates effective case planning and decisionmaking
• The worker becomes the “catalyst” for extended families,
friends, community members supporting each other as
they did traditionally
2
Principles of the Signs of Safety Model
•
•
•
•
Strength-based approach
Customized to each family’s needs
Maintains a focus on child’s safety
Respects the families beliefs, values and
as the experts of their own lives
• Recognizes that all families have signs of
safety
• Recognizes family’s cultural identity
3
SOS Worldwide
• developed through the 1990’s in Western Australia by
Andrew Turnell and Steve Edwards in collaboration
with over 150 West Australian child protection workers
• Edwards and Turnell’s collaboration and Edwards’ use
of brief therapy ideas in his own child protection
practice between 1989 and 1993 were the beginnings
of the Signs of Safety approach
• Accepted world wide: utilized in New Zealand,
Australia, USA, England, Japan, Scotland, Norway, the
Netherlands, Sweden and Canada
4
GOAL OF IMPLEMANTATION
• To embed the Signs of
Safety model including
the principles and clinical
consultation approach in
all aspects of service
provision
5
Why The Journey to Implement SOS?
• Transformation Agenda and Differential
Response
• SOS framework is the vehicle to achieve the
principles of Differential Response
• Mission, Vision, Values of CAS of Brant
• Clinical Supervision Model
– Use of the framework in individual
supervision
– Increase the use of team clinical supervision
• Anti-oppressive practice
6
The Signs of Safety Framework
(“Board” or “map)
7
The SOS framework (board or map)
• Is a means to an end - a mechanism to
arrive at a destination
• That destination is rigorous, sustainable,
on-the-ground child safety
• The purpose of using the Signs of Safety
framework and practices is to generate
child protection practice that is organised
first and foremost around child safety
8
Signs of Safety Assessment and Planning
Framework (“The Board”)
9
Signs of Safety Assessment and Planning
Framework (“The Board”)
What’s working well? What are we worried about? What needs to happen?
Who can help? What will they do? When
will they start & finish? How often will
they do ? (SMART goals)
Danger Statement
10
Relevance/Benefits of Using the Board
Assists in critical analysis of child/family situation:
• Separates complicating factors from risk of
harm
• Assists workers in asking strength based
questions with families
• Provides alternate direction/strategies in
engaging children and families with the goal of
increasing safety within the home
• Provides clarity to the supervisor regarding
case direction but also provides supervisor with
information on learning needs of workers
11
SOS Tools for Children
•Practical tools for having purposeful conversations with
children
•Involve children in child protection assessment & planning
12
Tools for Native children
Tools for Native children
How will the SOS framework be applied at
CAS of Brant?
• Through the use of the framework in individual
and team supervision
• Through the implementation of a new case
conferencing continuum to support case
planning and decision-making
• All case planning and significant decisionmaking will occur with the involvement of
children/youth, families, their relatives and
other (community) supports
• Internal case consultation will be made
available to facilitate the use of agency
“experts” to support knowledge and skill
development and thus quality service
15
Positive Results in Olmsted County, Minnesota
As a result of implementing Differential
Response, Family Involvement
Strategies and the Signs of Safety
approach:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fewer investigations
Less repeat child maltreatment
Less court ordered involvement
Less children in placement
Fewer days of foster care
More family involvement
16
Positive Results in Minnesota
17
Our Implementation Journey
2002 - first “taste” of SOS
–
–
–
–
agency purchased SOS book for all employees
Individual & team self-study – including directors
Summary of book completed and distributed
Principles began to “permeate” practice
2009 Training
• Training for initial “core” group of 11 managers and
directors on April 6 and 7, 2009 by Andrew Turnell
• 2-day training for entire service management and
directors group on April 14 and 15 by Peel CAS
• 2-day training for all service front-line staff on April 22
and 30 by Peel CAS
18
Our Implementation Journey
April – June 2009 – Ongoing learning
• Bi-weekly meetings of Brant CAS managers/directors
with Peel CAS practice leaders for ongoing learning
• Presentations & discussion on “themes” in morning
• Demonstration of a “board” in afternoon
September – December 2009 - “practicum”
• 5 Brant CAS managers + 1 director
– Video self facilitating SOS “boards”
– Bring video for discussion of process in small group
of “interns”
Outcome – Brant CAS has internal SOS “coaches”
19
Our Implementation Journey
March – June 2010 – “practicum”
• 6 Brant CAS SOS “practice leaders” coach 17 workers
and managers
• Replicate the process they experienced with Peel CAS
SOS materials on the intranet
• Purchased DVDs with workbooks for individual and
team self-study
– Mapping
– Tools for children
• Articles
20
What are we learning?
• The training focuses on the following elements
of the practice framework:
– general overview of the practice principles of Signs
of Safety
– case "mapping" using the Signs of Safety
assessment and planning form
– use of the "three houses" and/or the fairy/wizards
tools and processes to more actively involve
children in child protection assessment
– use of "solution-focused" questions - scaling
questions, exception questions, miracle questions in
day-to-day interactions with clients
– development of a rigorous safety plan (vs. case
planning that is a “menu of professional services")
21
Results of Practice Principles
Questionnaire (April 2009)
• Staff and managers rated their own
professional philosophy on all SOS
principles, significantly higher than
agency practice reflecting these
principles
22
What’s working well? (Jan. 2010)
• SOS philosophy/use is spread out throughout the agency
• Strength-based SOS language being used more frequently with
families, in supervision and in the community
• Much interest with many managers in using SOS framework
• SOS provides opportunity for managers to come together for
clinical discussions
• Practice leaders who completed the “practicum” are feeling more
confident
• New practice leaders feel the intensive “practicum” has taken their
skill to a new level
• Anecdotally, good, positive results from boards – good, fast plans
and clarity
• Families are being involved regularly in the process
• Families are providing positive feedback
• Community collaterals feel BCAS is much more strength-based,
safety-focused and transparent
23
What are we worried about? (Jan. 2010)
• More boards being done in some areas than others (uneven buyin and/or implementation)
• Will “lack of time” be used as an excuse to avoid changing
practice?
• Staff see themselves primarily as case managers – need to make
shift to more of a counseling role – will SOS facilitate workers
doing more counseling with clients?
• Completion of tools can be seen as the “outcome” or the “end”
rather than the means – danger of separation of the tools from the
philosophy, practice, plans, decisions
• Not yet sufficiently involving children/youth in safety planning
• How will we organize the availability of neutral facilitators?
• Is SOS written consistently into policies/procedures, mission,
vision?
• How will we evaluate the impact/effectiveness of SOS?
24
How will the model be evaluated?
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
• SOS training evaluations
• Initial questionnaire (self-evaluation) re level of “buy-in” to the SOS
practice principles in April 2009 – at the training
• Annual individual survey re use of SoS techniques in day-to-day practice
• Annual team “board” re what’s working well, what are we worried about
• Client satisfaction questionnaires re experience in case conferences
AGENCY STATISTICS
• Number of admissions to care
• Number of children in care
• Number of children in kinship service and kinship care homes
• Length of time in care prior to achieving permanency (including return to
family)
• Number of new protection applications
• Number of cases before the court
• Number of re-openings where a child was found in need of protection
• Number of self-referrals that were opened for child protection or nonprotection services
• Length of case opening (number of months from opening to closure)
NOTE: The experience of other jurisdictions is that statistics don’t begin to
indicate change until 2-3 years into the implementation process.
25